
Book Q7- . 

Cofpight N" 



CSEmiGHT DEPOSm 



WHAT Dm JESUS TEACH ? 




OTHER BOOKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR 



A HISTORY OF EDUCATION IN THREE 
VOLUMES 

Vol. I. Before the Middle Ages 

Vol. n. During the Middle Ages and the 

Transition to Modern Times 
Vol. m. In Modern Times 

GREAT EDUCATORS OF THREE CENTURIES 
PETER RAMUS AND THE EDUCATIONAL 

REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH 

CENTURY 
A STUDENT'S HISTORY OF EDUCATION 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH ? 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL 
MATERIAL AND METHOD OF THE MASTER 



BY 
FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES 

(PH.D., COLUUBIA) 
DSAN or THE SCHOOL OF BDUCATIONi UNIVEKSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 



Nno fork 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

1919 

All rights restfMd 



^-^t 



Copyright, 1019 
By the MACMILLAN COMPANY 



Set up and electrotyped. Published November, 1919. 



m 26 1913 



©CI.A535879 



^1 




TO 

EDGAR FAHS SMITH, Ph.D., LLJ>. 
Provost of the University of Pennsylvania 

WHOSE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN MARKED 
BY A DEEP INTEREST IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 



PREFACE 

During the recent turmoil and strife existing through- 
out the civilized worid, it was often asked whether Chris- 
tianity has not failed. To answer this question, we must 
first imderstand what constitutes Christianity. The 
present would, therefore, seem a favorable time to study 
anew the teachings of the Founder of that religion, 
stripped of the accretions that subsequent time has gath- 
ered aroimd them. Acting upon this belief, the Christian 
Association of the University of Pennsylvania recently 
started a campaign to induce at least two thousand 
students to read during the Lenten period the life and 
sayings of Jesus as presented in their simplest form by 
the book of Mark. The first announcement of the 
course read: 

"Christianity = x -f- y 
y = 'isms' 
This is an equation, not an identity." 

After this statement of the equation had been posted 
long enough to arouse some curiosity in the student 
body, the second announcement, which was explanatory 
of the first, was made. It read as follows: 

"Has Christianity failed? 
Or only its ' isms'? 
What did Jesus teach?'' 



Vm PREFACE 

Those who pledged themselves to undertake this course 
were organized into seventy-two discussion groups. These 
groups arranged to meet once a week under the direction 
of a leader at fraternity houses, dormitories, classrooms, 
and the conunittee rooms of the Houston (Student's) 
Club. The leaders were enlisted from the faculty men, 
Christian Association secretaries, older students, and 
extramural friends of the University, and the conduct 
of a normal class for training the leaders was assigned to 
me as the representative of our School of Education. 

The study groups were composed of Jews, Catholics, 
Protestants of numerous shades of belief, and not a few 
who liked to call themselves agnostics. It was well, 
therefore, that it had been planned to limit the discussion 
to the essential teachings of Jesus, and to exclude as far 
as possible all extraneous and sectarian matter. Taken as 
a whole, the campaign seems to have been a conspicuous 
success. Even in the normal-training class it was felt 
by several that a new point of view concerning the sub- 
ject had been developed, and that this ought to be 
published. It was believed that the material in printed 
form might be of service in similar campaigns, state 
reading-circle courses, Chautauquas, round tables, Sun- 
day-school classes, and even the programs of schools, 
colleges, and universities. 

Such as they are, the studies have been here pre- 
sented in about the form that they were originally given, 
although occasionally additions and modifications have 
been introduced. The title of the course, which was 
originally suggested by Professor James T. Yoimg, and 
most of the topics for discussion have been preserved in 



PREFACE IX 

the book. As might be expected under the circumstances, 
the work is largely confined to the sources furnished by 
the writers of the New Testament, especially the gospels. 
Being untrained in theology, I have not attempted to 
find my way very far into the alluring by-paths of exe- 
gesis. The book is simply the product of a History 
of Education man, describing a well-known road, when 
viewed from his own angle. As an educationalist, too, 
I have inevitably tended toward the use of pedagogical 
devices. It is my hope that the paragraph headings, 
the marginal notes, the smnmaries at the end of the 
chapters, the supplementary readings, and the final con- 
clusions may all be of value in clarifying the text, making 
it more interesting, and fixing it lq mind. 

All of this, however, is not to say that the work is 
entirely original. Numerous standard books that have 
been written upon the teachings of Jesus were open to 
me, and I have not hesitated to read and borrow from 
many. To render the sources more intelligible and real 
to the modem mind, I have, with the permission of its 
publishers (Fleming H. Revell Company), made prac- 
tically all citations from The Twentieth Century New 
Testament, Several persons acquainted with the mod- 
em study of the Bible have been kind enough to read 
through the completed manuscript and to eliminate ob- 
vious errors and offer most helpful suggestions. Among 
these martyrs to the cause of friendship I take pleasure 
in recording my colleague. Professor Arthur J. Jones; 
Reverend M. Willard Lampe, Ph.D., Secretary for the 
Presbyterian Students, Christian Association of the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania; Dr. Edwin E. Slosson, a former 



X PREFACE 

Colleague, now Literary Editor of The Independent; and 
Reverend Howard M. Stuckert, M.A., Rector of the 
Church of the Holy Comforter, Philadelphia, and Assist- 
ant in History at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. 
Stuckert has also furnished me with charts illustrating 
the synoptic problem, and has endeavored to guide me 
through the eschatological mazes of the apocalyptic writ- 
ings. None of these gentlemen, however, should be held 
responsible for my failure to accept their advice upon 
mooted questions, or for the actual errors that have 
probably crept into this book. I have also been aided, 
as usual, by the painstaking assistance of my wife, Helen 
Wadsworth Graves. 

F. P. G. 
Philadelphia, August i, 1919. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Historical Sources for the Teachings of 

Jesus i 

II. Jesus as a Teacher 32 

III. Jesus' Methods of Teaching 50 

IV. Jesus' Idea of God 73 

V. Jesus' Idea of Man 95 

VI. Jesus' Conception of the Ideals and Recon- 
struction OF Life 106 

Vn. The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the 

Future 124 

VIII. Jesus' Teaching Concerning the Kingdom and 

THE Church 142 

DC. Jesus and Modern SoaETY 154 

Conclusions-— What Did Jesus Teach? 180 

Bibliography 183 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 
CHAPTER I 

HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS 

The Historical Method of Approach. — Is Jesus a 
myth? Or is he to be regarded as historic? If we be- 
Heve in his historicity, we should wish to study him in 
the light of history. If his recorded teachings appeal to 
us, we should approach them by historical methods. To 
gain an adequate idea of his life and teaching, then, we 
must resort to the primary sources. As in all other his- 
torical study, we should carefully examine the docu- 
ments bearing upon the subject, influenced as little as 
possible by personal bias or tradition. It would also ^ents^and*thdr 
seem essential to learn something of the writers of the ^ten»««<i«d- 
documents, that we may allow for the temperament, 
previous experience, point of view, and purpose of each, 
and, comparing their statements, strike a proper balance 
between them. In this way only can we hope to arrive 
at the truth. 

Such a procedure, however, has not always been as 
common as it should be. We often treat the historical 
material relating to this important subject with a cock- 
sureness amounting to flippancy, such as would not be 
tolerated in historical research elsewhere. So strong 
are our traditions, prejudices, and emotions in matters 



2 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

relating to our religious life and the faith of our fathers 
that we are all too likely to cling tenaciously to outworn 
conceptions, or else, rushing to the opposite extreme, 
impatiently fling the whole accumulation aside as worth- 
less or inextricable. There are, in consequence, two 
definite attitudes of hostility toward an historical inves- 
JS2s*'°that *are ligation of the teachings of Jesus. The first is revealed 
unsatiifactory. jj^ ^^XQ position of thc man who holds that the writings 
are mechanically inspired and must be taken at their 
face value — verbatim et litteratim. The other view is 
the diametrical opposite. It absolutely rejects the his- 
toricity of the Nazarene and indiscriminately brands every 
writing upon the subject as a vciyth or even a pious fraud. 
Neither attitude is in keeping with historical method, and 
both seem weak. While polar in their position, the advo- 
cates of these theories are equally dogmatic in their as- 
sumptions, and hold to the same underlying fallacy, that 
truth can be found without effort or travail of soul. 

Rejection of Historicity. — Possibly the latter view- 
point may be considered a negative reaction to the 
former, but surely such a radical departure cannot be 
justified. The fact that certain hteralists are able to 
absorb any contradiction or irrarionahty that arises with 
lixtfo^^lf hL the aid of the capsule they misname "faith," does not 
wSJStedf °°' warrant the conclusion that the edible and nutritious 
portions of the narratives should likewise be petulantly 
cast to the winds. It is difficult to understand the mental 
processes of a man who shows Httle hesitation about 
accepting extremely doubtful or hazy data concerning 
Savonarola, Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar, or even 
Alfred, Cleopatra, and Diogenes, but, through his antip- 



mSTOMCAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 3 

athy to credulity, rejects with small exception the facts 
concerning Jesus, which can obtain such abundant sup- 
port and confirmation from historical sources. It would 
certainly be only rational for him to enlarge his vision 
and apply the winnow of historical criticism to the ma- 
terial at hand. It may take longer, but is it not fairer 
and worth the trial? 

Verbal Inspiration, — On the other hand, the path of 
the verbal inspirationist is beset with insuperable diffi- 
culties. He must perforce admit that the material has 
come down to him strained through two media at least. 
Jesus himself wrote nothing. He spoke the truth as it ? Nor is verbal 

■' ^ . . inspiration, be- 

appeared to him and trusted to its inherent power to '^^^^°^ ^'^^' 
preserve it. Hence, with the possible exception of six 
words — talitha cumij used in healing the ruler's daughter, 
and Eloij Eloi, lama sabachthani, the cry from the cross — 
few would claim that the exact phraseology of Jesus 
has been recorded. Jesus apparently spoke in the Pal- 
estinian dialect of Hebrew known as "Aramaic," but 
the earliest complete report of his words and teachings 
has come down to us in the Greek of the day, and only 
after the lapse of centuries was it turned into English. 
Our English New Testament, therefore, is at best a 
translation of a translation. It contains in the first in- 
stance many peculiarities and accretions from the minds 
of the reporters, and in the second instance the texts 
from which the English versions have been made were 
variant and very doubtful in parts. Obviously we can 
not, in our interpretation, place the emphasis necessary 
to satisfy the literalist upon the form or order in which 
the words of Jesus now appear. 



4 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

The accuracy of the records, too, must have been 
considerably affected by the length of time that elapsed 
before the teachings of Jesus were put into writing 

lapse of time ^^ ^^- While Jcsus was Still with them, and even 
for a quarter of a century after his death, the disciples 
had little reason to write down any accoimt of his words 
and teachings, as these were impressed upon the mem- 
ories of all by constant contact with the Master, and 
by frequent repetition of his principles in their teaching. 
But as the original Twelve began to pass away, and 
Christianity spread far beyond the confines of Pales- 
tine, it became necessary for the new generation to re- 
enforce their memory with written accounts, and to 
utilize the record thus made for instructing others in the 
words and deeds of Jesus. And during the period that 
intervened between the utterance of these teachings and 
their crystallisation in written form, there was every 
opportunity for large modifications and additions to slip 
in as they were handed down by word of mouth. There 

modifications by is plain cvidcuce in each of the gospels, especially the 
fourth, of a large amount of material that has been intro- 
duced through the evangelist editor or modified by the 
lapse of time. This appears in the form of introductions, 
explanations, comments, transpositions, and even verbal 
changes. Careful comparison of the different writings 
and serious historical study are everywhere needed to free 
the primitive teachings of Jesus from the excursive and 
modifying material with which they are accompanied. 
Even then, if we adhere to the surface of the text, we 
are liable to misunderstand the quaint language of the 
Oriental imagery of the gospels, and are often in danger 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 5 

of pushing an analogy further than was intended or 
of reading modem ideas into the ancient expressions. 
Clearly we cannot be satisfied with the literal and verbal 
interpretation, though we may thereby be saved much 
intellectual labor. "For the letter killeth, but the spirit 
giveth life." 

Furthermore, he that would take each passage literally, 
inevitably finds himself involved in inconsistencies re- 
sulting from the way in which Jesus promulgated his 
teachinsrs. The Master talked informally with individ- and the incom- 

^ ^ '' plete nature of 

uals or groups as the opportumty arose. Apparently the teachings. 
he had no idea of reducing his thoughts to stereotyped 
doctrines or formal rules of conduct. He felt that he 
was uttering that phase of the truth that each occasion 
demanded, and was not concerned with building a sys- 
tem or supporting his position by an appeal to logic 
or learning. His ideas upon any single subject were 
often expressed upon very different occasions, and, if 
they are taken separately, seem qualifying or even con- 
tradictory. His utterances were never arranged in a 
formal or logical order, and a single phase of truth is often 
portrayed so forcefully as seemingly to exhaust all his 
thought upon the subject, until it is found that elsewhere 
a modifying position is expressed with equal emphasis. 
It is evident, then, that his real attitude can be under- 
stood only through a combination of his different ideas 
on the same general theme (cj. pp. 114 and i56f.). His 
teachings are complementary, and in no case should a 
statement be taken as final, when isolated from the rest 
of his thought. His ideas upon any point should be 
assembled and carefully balanced, if we wish to under- 



6 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

stand them. Only in this way can a mass of difficulties 
be resolved, and the one-sided views of literalism, which 
has led to the foundation of sects innumerable, be 
avoided. 

Nor can the advocacy of verbal inspiration defend 
itseK upon the score of its antiquity. It seems not to 
have been current in earliest Christianity. The quota- 
tions from the Old Testament in the New by Jesus or 
the early Christians were in some instances obviously 
made from memory. Nor were the gospels originally 
regarded as furnishing absolute knowledge from a super- 
natural source, but were considered to be the natural 
products of disciples desirous of recording the work of 
their Master as graphically as each was able. Luke 
opens his account of the gospel by frankly telling his 
friend: 

"Many attempts have been already made to draw 
up an account of those events which have reached their 
conclusion among us, just as they were reported to us 
by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and 
afterwards became bearers of the Message. And, there- 
fore, I also, since I have investigated all these events 
with great care from their very beginning, have resolved 
to write a connected history of them for you, in order 
that you may be able to satisfy yourself of the accuracy 
of the story which you have heard from the lips of others " 
{Luke I, 1-4). 

In other words, Luke does not lay claim to any super- 
verbai inspira- natural aid, but declares that, in accordance with the 

tion was not ' ' 

eLriSI? chrh-* practice of other chroniclers of the good news, he had 
^^^' weighed carefully and critically all the sources he could 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 7 

find, as he did not hold any of them to be entirely satis- 
factory. Such undoubtedly was also the view and method 
of procedure of Matthew and Mark. Even a hasty 
inspection of their writings shows that they, like Luke, 
used the materials at hand freely, though with dis- 
cernment and selection. This is confirmed by the state- 
ment of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, just 
before the middle of the second century of our era, that 
"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote 
down with accuracy, but not in chronological order, what- 
soever he remembered of the events of Jesus' life; this 
he did from information given him by Peter, for he 
was not himself an eyewitness." (See Eusebius, Church 
History, III, 39.) In fact, so far from thinking of the 
gospels as infallible, Papias tells us, as we might expect, 
that he did not get as reliable information from these 
accoimts as he did from the traditions of those who 
had been in personal contact with the first disciples. 
Justin Marytr (i 10-165 a.d.) likewise implies that 
the gospels are the products of human intelligence by 
referring to them as "recollections." And a similar es- 
timate is indicated by a number of other Church Fathers 
almost up to the close of the second century. Clement 
of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and others frequently cite 
the sayings of Jesus from the evangelists without men- 
tioning any source, and also quote other sayings not in 
our gospels. It is evident that, if they were acquainted 
with the gospels, they did not care to mention them as 
absolute authority for their statements. Shortly after- 
ward, however, a new attitude began to arise of regarding 
all the statements of the four evangelists as supernatural. 



8 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

equally infallible, and in complete harmony. This com- 
fortable assurance gradually developed during the next 
century or two, until by the time of the Middle Ages 
they were viewed as four necessary aspects of a single 
gospel established by divine decree. 

And, despite the obvious attitude of the evangelists 
themselves, this naive and uncritical view has largely 
prevailed in Christianity until modem biblical scholar- 
ship began to develop toward the close of the nine- 
teenth century, and historical methods came to be ap- 
plied to the study of the teachings of Jesus. Since then 
there has been an enormous increase in the literature 
produced upon the gospels from a scholarly point of 
view. These modern works imiformly give evidence of 
the keenest religious interest, but display an attitude of 
scholastic freedom. The type of book that takes the 
traditional views for granted is disappearing, and in all 
probability will eventually vanish. At any rate, it is our 
plan here to examine as carefully as we can the nature 
of our historical sources for the teachings of Jesus, and to 
allow for what we know to have been the character and 
viewpoint of the writers. 

Chief Sources for the Teachings of Jesus. — The 
chief sources for the teachings of Jesus are the books of 
the New Testament, especially the versions of the gos- 
pel given us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respec- 
tively. The books that make up the New Testament 
were gradually assembled out of a large variety of works 
produced by members of the early Christian fellowship. 
The Canon that was eventually established out of these 
writings was not selected with deliberation or upon any 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS Q 

scholarly basis, but was determined by practical and 
popular movements. The books that approved them- 
selves came into general use in the churches and were 
confirmed as parts of the Canon by the church councils. 
Few writings of value, however, seem to have been lost. 

Of the gospels the first three — Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke — are in essential agreement as to time, place, and 
outline. They furnish a general view of the life and The three 
teaching of Jesus, and so have come to be known, col- go2S?^^*^ 
lectively, as the "synoptic" gospels. John produced a 
work of a very diJfferent sort; as compared with the syn- 
optic writings, it is supplementary and doctrinal. Mark's 
is the earliest gospel, and, while authorities differ some- 
what as to date, it must have been composed somewhere 
about 60 to 70 A.D. Matthew and Luke, both of whom 
seem to have been largely indebted to Mark for material, 
wrote some fifteen to twenty years afterward. Which of 
the two was the earlier is somewhat in doubt. The gos- 
pel of John came much later than either, after the apos- and the fourth 
tolic period of Christianity had passed, and is usually 
dated somewhere between 100 and no a.d. 

The Sa3rings of Jesus, — Before discussing each of the 
gospels in detail, however, it will be well to examine the 
nature and importance of some books produced by the 
Christian fellowship somewhat prior to them. It should Matthew and 
be noted first that Matthew and Luke bear evidence of IZm Marrand 
having borrowed also from some even earlier books than £g™ J jesuT 
that of Mark. After subtracting the narrative judged 
to have been taken from Mark, we find that about one- 
sixth of the subject-matter of these gospels appears to be 
largely the same, word for word, in the two. But appar- 



lO WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

ently Matthew did not furnish a copy for Luke, since the 
material in Chapters V-VII of the former is distributed"* 
throughout the whole work of the latter at more appro- 
priate points, nor, on the other hand, is it likely that 
Matthew would have borrowed from Luke and over- 
looked in that writer so many of the Sayings of Jesus, 
of which he was particularly fond. The only other possi- 
bility is that both copied from a still older source. This 
hypothetical work was formerly referred to as Matthew's 
Logia ("oracles") or The Sayings of Jesus, but is now 
denominated Q (Germ. Qwe//e," source") by most schol- 
ars. Matthew and Luke were apparently acquainted with 
this work in a Greek edition, as the order of words in each 
of these gospels is that of the Greek, but since there are 
some variants in the two texts, the assertion of Papias 
(Eusebius, Church History, III, 39) that the work had 
been originally written in Aramaic, the dialect used by 
Jesus, seems plausible, and it may be that Matthew and 
Luke used different translations from each other. Some 
scholars now think it not imlikely that Mark also had 
access to the work in some form or other. 

This source book seems to have been gathered shortly 
after the death of Jesus, about 35 a.d., when the disciples 
were first going out to preach. It may well have been 
collected by the apostoUc band itself, possibly even by 
Matthew alone, as Papias tells us. (See Eusebius, 
Church History, III, 39. Irenaeus makes a similar 
explanation in his treatise. Against Heresies, m, i, 
I.) It included all the basal teachings of Jesus, such as 
his idea of God as Father, his view of man^s sonship, his 
conception of hfe's ideals, and the vision of his Messiah- 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS II 

ship. The material may have included some narrative, 
• although it was formerly supposed to be only a collec- 
tion of sayings. It certainly furnished vivid glimpses u^v^JIJfdf^d 
of the life and ministry of Jesus, which were the more *™^'^°'^^^y- 
trustworthy as documentary evidence just because they 
were evidently so unintentional and incidental. Such a 
primitive treatment naturally showed greater simplicity 
in dealing with the person of Jesus and the supernatural, 
and it attempted no interpretations of the teachings. 
This work, then, as now included in Matthew, Luke, and 
possibly Mark, should rank high as source material. 

The Epistles of Paul. — But not only were the gospels 
antedated by this book no longer extant, but certain of 
the existing Epistles of Paul, some six in nmnber, were s^ of Paul's 
likewise produced before them. Paul, rather than the oider^^thSf *the 
evangelists, is to be considered the first Christian witness. ^°^^^- 
He wrote the first books of the New Testament some- 
where about 50 A.D. As this must have been a decade or 
two before the earliest gospel, it is evident that the 
Canon is not usually printed in historic order, although 
texts of this kind have been published (see p. 28 f .) . The 
works of Paul make little direct reference to the teaching 
of Jesus, and, while he does tell considerable about him, 
the facts are little related to each other. His main em- 
phasis is upon the heavenly Christ, and he apparently re- 
garded the earthly life of Jesus as relatively unimportant. 
Hence he generalizes " For I determined not to know any- 
thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 
Paul's nature was intensely religious and mystic. He was, 
however, practical, rugged, strong, and simple, and, while 
^ well trained in the rabbinical school of Gamaliel, his lit- 



12 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

erary style has more power than polish. He was the 
first disciple to see the possibility of making Christianity 
a religion for the whole world, rather than a mere sect of 
Judaism, and he showed himself a most micompromising 
advocate of that conception both in his own activities 
and in the councils of the brethren. He did not hesitate 
to upbraid the vacillating Peter and other conservative 
disciples on this issue, and to charge them with incon- 
sistency (see p. 150). The vigorous closing words of his 
life are most characteristic of him: "I have fought the 
good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the 
faith." 

A collection of the Sayings of Jesus, then, had been 
made a generation before the gospels were written, and 
Paul had likewise indicated some of the events of the 
Master's life. But the chief purpose of the Sayings and 
the Epistles had not been to record history, and there 
still remained the need of a systematic chronicle of the 
life, ministry, and principles of Jesus. This demand of 
primitive Christianity, four well-known writers, among 
others, endeavored to supply by their versions of what 
has been known, ever since the time of Justin Martyr, 
165 A.D. (see First Apology j 66), as the "gospel " or good 
news. 

The Gospel according to Mark. — The earliest of 
these accounts, as has already been suggested (p. 7), 
is that obtained largely from the recollections of Peter 
by his youthful friend, Mark. Not only have we the 
word of Papias (Eusebius, Church History, IH, 39) and 
Irenaeus {Against Heresies, III, i, 7) for this chief origin 
of the gospel of Mark, but the hypothesis is sup- 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS I3 

ported by internal evidence in the graphic personal 

incidents suggesting the recollections of an eyewitness. 

The great apostle seems to have spent much time in the ^Jst^^'goye^^ 

home of Mary, the mother of Mark, at Jerusalem, which KcSieftions,^- 

served as the earliest Christian church, and in turn the 

young man probably visited Peter frequently in his 

home at Capernaum. Mark, however, who is generally 

known in Acts and some of the Epistles by his Hebrew 

name of John, must have used other sources for the life 

and work of Jesus. He seems to have had recourse for 

material to some document containing a group of parables 

and various oral traditions — not improbably the book 

on the Sayings of Jesus — as well as to the accounts of 

Peter. 

Great interest in the cause and spread of Christianity 
is evident in the life of Mark, as well as in his writing. 
He was a cousin ^ of Barnabas, and went with that 
leader and Paul on their first great missionary tour. Be- 
cause of his defection at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts XIII, 
5 and 13) and return to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas 
afterward quarreled and separated in their work, when 
the latter proposed taking him back (Acts XV, 32-40). 
But later on {Colossians IV, 10) Mark apparently made 
his peace with the doughty disciple. There seems like- 
wise to have been a tradition to the effect that Mark was 
the young man clad in a linen cloth who followed after 
Jesus at the time of his arrest and was almost taken into 
custody himself. His identity in this incident is confirmed 
by the fact that from that time on Mark's gospel gives 

1 The King James Version translates as " nephew." 



14 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

much fuller details (Chapters XIV, 53-XVI), and from 
the account just preceding (Chapter XIII) the evangel- 
ist seems himself to have been an eyewitness to the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 

Mark's gospel, then, was probably one of those ac- 
counts alluded to in Luke (see p. 6) as having been 
written not by any of the twelve disciples themselves, 
but by others who obtained their information from such 
eyewitnesses, and in turn afforded part of the material 
for Luke's own work. The book of Mark is very prim- 
itive in comparison with that of Matthew and Luke, 
who so added to and refined upon him. It deals only 
with the period of Jesus' ministry, and does not include 
the detailed account of his genealogy and miraculous 
birth, the flight into Egypt, and other matter extraneous 
to the real work of the Master. It fails to record most 
of the parables and sayings that were afterward narrated. 
It is crude and awkward in style, and contains an un- 
mistakable Palestinian tinge in its choice of words and 
its constructions. 

But while Matthew affords a much more literary work, 
with all the beautiful sayings of Jesus, and Luke a far 

spirited and . .- . . , i «• 

graphic. more scientific account, containmg a larger number of 

the Master's remarkable parables, the gospel of Mark 
excels them both in spirit and graphicness. It furnishes 
us with a set of apostolic memoirs, plain and unvarn- 
ished. Its first-hand pictures and impressions of Jesus 
are without color or idealization. It often shows him 
tired or out of patience, and very human indeed. It 
depicts Jesus as a conqueror of all Satanic powers, and 
adds greatly to his heroic stature and appeal. The 



purposes. 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 1 5 

narrative is brief and vivid. Event follows event, and the 
use of the "historical present" shows the rapidity and 
completeness of his achievements, and graphically re- 
counts the triumph of Jesus over death and his exaltation 
to glory. While rude and primitive in form, Mark fur- 
nishes us with more valuable source material than does 
any of the other gospels. 

Matthew and Luke appear to have depended for their 
structure and most of their material upon Mark, al- 
though, as already seen (p. 9 f.), both drew a considerable 
amount directly from the now lost Sayings of Jesus. 
Each of them, moreover, made such changes, combina- Se^Sapted 
tions, and arrangements in the material as best suited to^helr™^'^'^ 
the purpose to which they wished to put it. Liike has 
more actual omissions and interpolations, and Matthew 
more transpositions. The chief reasons for these varia- 
tions from the sources in both writers were connected 
with their desire to adapt the narrative to the particular 
public to which each sought to appeal, to avoid state- 
ments that might prove offensive to the developing sen- 
timent of Christianity, or to put the narrative into better 
Kterary form. Both seem also to have used other sources 
to some extent. The records they give of the genealogy 
and the infancy of Jesus certainly are not in Mark, and 
could hardly have been included in the Sayings of Jesus. 
There seems, however, to have been no interdependence 
between Matthew and Luke, except as they were mu- 
tually dependent on Mark and the Sayings of Jesus. 
Their accounts of the genealogy and infancy of Jesus and 
of his appearance in Nazareth, which each has taken 
from other sources, differ widely. 



l6 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

The Gospel according to Matthew. — Matthew, at 
the time of his call to disciple^p, was known as Levi, a 
"publican," who had been stationed at the head of the 
Sea of Galilee, to collect the imperial taxes. This gospel 
is ecclesiastical and represents a polemic attitude to- 
Matthew, is Ward Judaism. It details the descent of Jesus from David 

ecclesiastical; " " 

'^dS^ttitude ^^^ Abraham and emphasizes the events of Jesus* life 
toward Judaism, ^^ ^ complction of the Jewish prophecies. In the early 
chapters, the phrase "in order that it might be fulfilled" 
constantly recurs. Yet it does not attempt to Judaize, 
for it caustically criticises the formal piety of the Phar- 
isees and repeatedly stresses the tone of universal appli- 
cation in Jesus' teachings. It even seeks to introduce a 
large amount of the supernatural element into his life, 
such as walking upon the water and the miraculous 
finding of a coin in the mouth of a fish. 

Moreover, this gospel, though given first in the Testa- 
ment, is peculiar in incorporating some of the doctrinal 
tendencies of the Christian Church, or CathoKc move- 
ment, that were developing after the earliest period. 
This is especially seen in the incident upon which the 
theory of Peter's leadership is based (Matthew XVI, i8 f .), 
which did not appear at all in Mark's narration of the 
events at Caesarea Philippi (Mark VII, 29). In other 
words, while the Jewish antecedents of Christianity are 
stressed in Matthew, it is for the purpose of revealing 
and he- htens J^^us as the Mcssiah long foretold, and of heightening 
S^fS""^'^^ his personality. The book appears to have been pro- 
duced in a more doctrinal and less primitive day than 
those of the early fellowship. Hence, if we are to trust 
the statements of Papias and Irenaeus (see p. 10) that 



I 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 1 7 

Matthew wrote the Sayings of Jesus, we can hardly sup- 
pose that the first gospel in its present form was also tlie 
unmodified product of that apostle. Apart from the 
introductory chapters (I and II), the Sermon on the 
Mount (V-Vn), the instruction to the Twelve (X), and 
the chapter of parables (XIII), Matthew^s gospel is 
clearly based upon Mark's, and is even less primitive 
than that of Luke. It may, however, while modified and 
incorporated with other material by a later hand, have 
received its name from the author of the Sayings of Jesus, 
which evidently served as one of its chief sources. This 
would explain the obvious difference in the production 
of two works ascribed to the same writer. 

The Gospel according to Luke. — Luke seems to have 
been the only New Testament writer of gentile origin. 
Together with Epaphras and Demas, he is thus distin- 
guished by Paul (Colossians IV, 12-14) from all his other 
assistants, who were "of the circumcision." Paul also 
speaks of Luke as " the beloved physician," and he seems 
to have been the sole companion of Paul that had re- Luke's training 
ceived a good literary and scientific training. As we have 
seen (p. 6), he carefully collected and selected from the 
accounts of his predecessors, and presented the material 
in a more complete, systematic, and polished fashion. 
It is not improbable that his home was at Antioch, and 
that in his practice as a physician and his share in the 
life of the young church at that place, he obtained a rich 
social experience. This would help to account for the ment 
keener human interest and the more intense sympathy 
with the poor, together with a condemnation of the rich, 
that are everywhere evident in Luke's gospel. In com- 



l8 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

parison with the other evangehsts, he appears preemi- 
nently a social reformer and agitator. 

These scientific and philanthropic characteristics in 
Luke would seem largely to have determined his choice of 
material and his method of presentation. While he has 
borrowed three-fourths of Mark's material, and has 
adopted his order of events, he does not hesitate to omit 
some thirteen passages, and even to make changes in the 
Sod&y ^Mark scnse. His greatest change is the omission of all the in- 
silaiTeSrm^' cidents narrated from Mark VI, 45 to VIII, 26. He 
makes similar free use of the Sayings of Jesus. Although 
Luke less often introduces changes in the actual words of 
Jesus than in the narrative material, he emphasizes the 
most radical teachings of the Master in all their sternness 
of tone, where Matthew seems often to have softened 
them. For example, the beatitude that Matthew (V, 3) 
renders: "Blessed are the poor in spirit" appears in 
Luke as: "Blessed are you who are poor . . . Blessed 
are you who hunger now . . . But alas for you who are 
rich . . . Alas for you who are sated now" (VI, 20-25). 
Thus the passage that Luke makes an excoriation of 
greed, Matthew reports as a commendation of humility. 

About one-third of Luke's total text must have been 
taken from sources other than Mark and the Sayings of 
Jesus. In gathering this material peculiar to his gospel, 
Luke tested it as carefully and adapted it as freely to his 
purpose as he did the more common sources. His most 
radical change here appears in the insertion of material 
from IX, 51, to XVIII, 14. These added incidents in- 
clude much that is calculated to reveal the broad and 
tender sympathies of Jesus, and to stress his noble human- 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 1 9 

ity in the treatment of the neglected and persecuted, — 
the poor, publicans, sinners, women, and lepers. Here 
alone appear the parables of the Good Samaritan (X, 30- 
35), the Friend asking for Bread (XI, 5-13), the Rich 
Fool (XII, 16-21), the Lost Sheep (XV, 3-7), the Lost 
Coin (XV, 8-1 1), the Prodigal Son (XV, 11-32), the Rich 
Man and Lazarus (XVI, 19-31), the Unjust Judge (XVII, 
1-8), the Pharisee and the Publican (XVIII, 9-14), and 
many others. In this addition we find also the sending 
forth of the Seventy without material provision (X, i- 
16), the instructive visit of Jesus to the home of Mary and 
Martha (X, 38-42), and the blessing pronounced by a 
certain woman upon the Mother of Jesus (XI, 27 f.). 

The peculiar sympathy of Luke for the poor and op- 
pressed appears throughout his version of the gospel. He 
takes little interest in the miraculous aspect of Jesus' 
work, but he is greatly moved by the depth and breadth 
of his message for humanity. He constantly adds 
touches to bring this out. Where Matthew traces the 
genealogy of Jesus to Abraham to demonstrate his Mes- 
siahship, Luke (III, 38) connects him with Adam as a 
symbol of his humanity, and stresses the universality of 
the opportunities he offers. He is the only evangelist to 
tell us that during his ministry Jesus and his disciples 
were somewhat dependent upon charity for support 
{Lk. VIII, 2 f.). Throughout, Luke seldom fails to de- 
pict Jesus' encouragement of the poor and his denuncia- 
tion of the unsympathetic rich. The point of view in his 
gospel is distinctively social. 

The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. — This accoimt 
of the sources and point of view of the Synoptists that 



20 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



has now been given may have proved somewhat difficult 
and confusing, especially to those who have not made 
any historical study of the New Testament. It may, 
therefore, be well, before undertaking a description of 
the Fourth Gospel, to attempt to clarify the matter by 
diagrammatic means. The charts printed below show 
in outline two theories of the sources of the synoptic writ- 
ings that have the widest currency. Due allowance for 
each solution has been made in the preceding description. 



TWO SOEUTIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 



I. The Older Solution 



.Matthe 



I.uke. 



Infancy and 
Resurrection 
Narratives, A 




Translation, A 



Matthew's I/)&ia 
(A collection of saying^s 
only in Aramaicj 

II. The Newer Solution 
(Weiss, accepted substantially by Hamack, Sanday, Streetet,and others) 



Matthew. 



Slight Addition 
from Oral Traditions 



I,uke 




(a collection of narratives, 
as well as sayings, in 
Aramaic, by Matthew) 



(A collection of sayings, 
with narratives, written 
in Judaea; author unknown, 
but close to John and Mary) 



The Gospel according to John. — The three synoptic 
gospels, then, although having much of their material 
in common, are quite distinctive in their point of view. 
Nevertheless, they are usually grouped together because 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 21 

of the similarity in material and form of presentation, 
when compared with the Fourth Gospel, called by the 
name of the "beloved apostle," John. Here we find a 
radical difference from the synoptic writings in content, 
emphasis, and method of approach. In fact, from inter- 
nal evidence one finds it difficult to understand how this 
book could possibly have been written during the life- 
time of John or by one so thoroughly Hebraic in his out- 
look and expression as a Galilean fisherman, son of Zebe- john shows the 
dee and brother of James. Yet it must be remembered HeuSc °pbi- 
that John lived to a great age, and that Ephesus, his 
traditional place of residence, was a center of Judaeo- 
Greek culture. Hence the Fourth Gospel may have been 
based upon the Johannine tradition, and may even have 
been written in part by the disciple. Certainly in its 
present form it must have been produced by one who had 
been largely influenced by Hellenistic philosophy — pos- 
sibly a member of the "school of John" at Ephesus — 
and may be judged to have been composed as late as loo 

or I lO A.D. 

The underlying conception of John is the old logos 
("word" or "reason") doctrine of the Stoics, which had Logof dStriS" 
been given a new spiritual significance by such reKgion- phifo°jSusT^ 
ists as Philo Judaeus. The explicit terminology of this 
Logos philosophy appears in the introductory fourteen 
verses of the first chapter of John, but the basal idea runs 
throughout the entire gospel. The conception constitutes 
its foimdation, as well as its point of departure. While 
the idea of the Logos differs somewhat in the Fourth Gos- 
pel from that of Philo, it has evidently been influenced by 
it, as well as by the original Stoic conception. With both 



32 WHAT DID JESUS TKACH? 

John and Philo, the Logos is treated as divine, existing 
from the beginning as the agent of the Creator, and serv- 
ing as the archetype for man, much as God was the arche- 
type of the Logos itself. Thus it was the mediator be- 
tween God and man. New features, however, appear 
in the conception of John, as a result of the identification 
in this gospel of the Logos with an historic personage, 
Jesus. 

We find, then, in the Fourth Gospel a highly developed 
Greek modification of the primitive teachings of Jesus. 
Hence John the Baptist no longer appears in this gospel 
as a forerunner, since Jesus is depicted as having existed 
from the beginning. He has always been the Son and 
eternal companion of the Father, and John the Baptist 
never seems to have been in doubt concerning the Mes- 
siahship of Jesus. Nor does either the growth of the dis- 
ciples' faith in Jesus or the hatred and opposition of the 
Jews appear to have been gradually developed, as with 
the Synoptists, but both attitudes are described as exist- 
ing from the very first. From the begioning, too, the 
mission of Jesus is represented as universal, and he comes 
to give Ufe to all humanity, without regard to national 
lines. Moreover, the fatherhood of God now seems to be 
limited to Jesus, and the Father can never be brought 
into the most intimate contact with men, except as they 
first secure the love of the one who holds this unique 
place. The point of view becomes Christocentric, instead 
th^ dS^% ^^ theocentric. John naturally tends to magnify the 
Jesus. deeds of Jesus. Many wonderful signs of his power are 

given by the Master, which the Synoptists had recorded 
him as beiQg imwilling to do. His works are no longer 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 23 

cited as evidence of his compassion and of the actual 
presence of God's kingdom, so much as a manifestation 
of his power and a proof that he is actually the son of 
God. 

Evidently this Fourth Gospel is not to be considered 
primarily biographical or historical. It furnishes us with 
an interpretation, rather than a chronicle of events. It 
is clearly a philosophical treatise upon the meaning of the 
life of Jesus. It is concerned less with the life itself than 
with its spiritual nature and uniqueness. While some of 
John's material is in keeping with that given by the Syn- notdwayfaJS 
optists, he treats the facts of Jesus' life with considerable s!}S)ptSte°* ^* 
freedom, and the geography of the Master's labors 
varies strikingly from that in the other gospels. Of the 
narrative in the synoptic writers less than eight per cent 
of the events prior to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem 
appear also in John, and, while the purport of Jesus' say- 
ings as given by John harmonizes quite fully with that in 
the other gospels, they agree but little in their form. 
After returning from his interview with John the Baptist, 
the Synoptists depict Jesus as devoting himself to Gali- 
lee, with Capemaiun as his center, until toward the end 
of his ministry, but in John the chief scene of his activi- 
ties from the beginning is Jerusalem. Instead of the terse 
illustrations and crisp epigrammatic expressions that 
appear in the synoptic gospels, John depicts Jesus as 
employing a style very like his own. There are a few 
allegories, but no parables in the Fourth Gospel, and 
long and repetitious disquisitions upon philosophy take 
the place of the epigrams. Among these elaborate ad- 
dresses are those upon the "bread of life" (VI), and upon 



24 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

the departure of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit 
(XIV-XVII). 

Hence the version of the gospel given by John is not to 
be regarded quite as a primary source. Any factual or 
historical statement made by him must be scanned with 
some care, and, before acceptance, it should be verified 
through other sources. All rehable material should, of 
course, be selected and utilized, especially if it is in har- 
mony with that of the other gospels, but in the main the 
Synoptists must be our chief historical authorities for 
eliciting the facts in the life of Jesus. John's gospel is, 
however, of great value in throwing light upon the be- 
Hef and experiences of the Christians of the early second 
century. This treatise undoubtedly reflects much of the 
views, traditions, and utterances of the Christians after 
they had begun to express their religion in terms of Hel- 
lenistic philosophy. 

Other Gospels and Non-Christian Writers. — We have 
already noted (pp. 7 ff.) that, besides the four so weU 
known through the Canon, there were other gospels. 
These, for some reason, did not prove as popular with the 
churches and eventually dropped out of use. However, 
we still possess records of some of these works. Such is 
The Gospel thc Gospel accordlug to the Hebrews, preserved mostly in 
Hebrews ° the writiugs of Origeu and Jerome. The date of this 
production must have been somewhere between 65 and 
100 A.D. While of approximately the same period as the 
synoptic gospels, it is not nearly as valuable for source 
material. It is occasionally ancillary in throwing light 
upon the history of Jesus, but it is of little importance in 
itself. A manuscript containing the Gospel of Peter, 



mSTORICAL SOTIRCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 2$ 

which seems to have been in use toward the end of the and the cospei 

of Peter contain 

second century, was discovered about 1890, and has been Jiateria1'*^*'^°^*^ 
widely translated. This gospel makes many additions 
to the ordinary accounts, but was evidently written by an 
author who was quite ignorant of the political conditions 
of Jesus' day. It is crude and contains much legendary 
material, and seems to have belonged to the group of 
Christians known as Docetists ("appearers")- This he- 
retical sect held that the body of Jesus was a mere 
phantom or appearance, or, if it was real, it was celestial 
rather than terrestrial. According to them Christ de- 
parted from Jesus before his death, and this gospel ren- 
dered the cry from the cross: "My Power, my Power, 
thou hast forsaken me ! " Obviously these versions of the 
gospel, possessing neither the antiquity nor the verisimili- 
tude of the synoptics, cannot be classed with them. 

Other references to Jesus and the early Christians ap- 
pear in such authorities as Tosephus (^7- c.ioo a.d.), Non-chnstian 

*^ J r \yj I /7 enters are of 

Pliny the Younger (62-113 a.d.), Suetonius (fl. 100 a.d.), ^^^^« ^^lue. 
and Tacitus (c. 51-113 a.d.), but these allusions are very- 
casual and meager, and are of little worth as primary 
sources. Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-54 a.d.), Seneca 
(4 B.C.-65 A.D.), and Plutarch (c. 46-120 a.d.), who 
lived in the apostolic period, do not even mention Jesus. 
Naturally, with the ideals and interests prevailing in 
those days of Roman imperialism, the meek and lowly 
Nazarene and the peculiar and unpopular people that 
professed his teachings excited but little interest, even 
from high-minded writers. The primary sources for the 
life and works of Jesus are almost entirely Christian, and 
may be limited very nearly to the New Testament. Of 



a6 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



Manuscripts 
contain many 
variants. 



The Compluten- 
tian and the 
Erasmian edi- 
tions influenced 
all other texts. 



these the synoptic gospels afford by far the most reKable 
source material. 

The Manuscripts and Printed Texts of the New Testa- 
ment. — The books finally included in the Canon of the 
New Testament were at first preserved by manuscript, as 
the art of printing was not discovered until more than 
twelve hundred years after their composition. But we 
have neither record nor tradition of any of the original 
manuscripts. Copies of them, however, seem to have 
been made comparatively early, and by the middle of 
the second century they were being extensively multiplied. 
The earliest manuscripts now in existence apparently date 
from about the fourth century, and from these an enor- 
mous number of copies were made by hand before print- 
ing was introduced. A large number of variants in the 
text and curious displacements of material arose through 
the peculiarity of different copyists, and it is often quite 
impossible to discover the form in which the original 
manuscripts reported the message. This further com- 
pHcates the difficulty of assuming verbal inspiration. 

The first printed text of the New Testament was that 
known as the " Complutensian." It was prepared at the 
request of Cardinal Ximenes at Alcala, Spain, which 
place had been known as Complutum in ancient days. 
The manuscript or manuscripts from which this book 
was taken are imknown. The work was begun in 15 14, 
but it was not issued until six years later. Meanwhile 
Erasmus, the great humanist and Bible scholar, antic- 
ipated its completion with a very faulty text, made at 
Basel in 1 5 16 from five or six manuscripts. Despite the 
careless production of this book by Erasmus, it has had 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OT JESUS 27 

more to do with fixing the Greek text of the New Testa- 
ment than any other work, as the edition contained some 
thirty-three hundred copies and only six hundred copies 
of the Complutensian were made. And these two printed 
texts, derived from comparatively late manuscripts taken 
at random, served as the basis for a number of succeed- 
ing editions. In 1546 Stephanus issued his text, which 
was the resultant of the two earlier productions im- 
proved by comparison with some fifteen additional manu- 
scripts. The next important edition was that issued by 
Beza at Geneva in 1565, after consulting a few more 
manuscripts. The famous Elzevir print of the New 
Testament passed through half a dozen editions during 
the half century following 1624. 

All of these texts were inaccurate and somewhat the 
result of haphazard collections. But from about the 
middle of the seventeenth century until the present there 
has been a vigorous effort made by scholars to furnish 
more accurate versions. They have everywhere been Modem schoiar- 

, . ,, ., , , . , ship has pro- 

gathermg up all possible manuscnpts, arranging them f"curate"°edi- 
in "families," and determining the oldest texts. Almost ^'°°s- 
four thousand Greek manuscripts have been found, and 
among them are nearly all those of most importance. 
Some eight thousand manuscripts of the Latin texts, 
including the Vulgate, about nine thousand of the Syriac, 
Aramaic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and other ancient 
forms have likewise been collected, which, while not 
comparing with the Greek in value, often throw light 
upon doubtful places. Hence, while we can scarcely 
hope ever to be certain in all cases of the form in which 
New Testament writers gave their message, we shall 



28 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



constantly approximate more and more their actual 
words. 

In view of this, it is difficult to imderstand how anyone 
who has a regard for truth and accuracy, can still cling 
teanskuln"^^^^ ^^ ^^^ King Jamcs translation, even with its beautiful 
diction, and act as if this brought us closest to infallible 
truth. This so-called Authorized Version , published in 
1611, was the outcome of many successive revisions of 
the translation completed by T3nidale in 1534, which 
was to a certain extent dependent upon that made by 
WycKf about 1380, and the Wyclif translation was not 
from the original Greek, but from the Vulgate text. 
Moreover, as we have noted, it is since the day of the 
King James Version that the oldest and most important 
of the manuscripts have been foimd or become accessible. 
Obviously the Revised Version of 1881 must be closer 
to the original, and much better for genuine study. 

But even this edition did not have the benefit of the 
latest discoveries, and its English, though quaint and 
charming, is in many passages almost unintelligible to 
the modem reader. Moreover, the retention of a style 
and phraseology no longer commonly used too often gives 
one the impression that the message of the Bible is veiy 
remote from life in the twentieth century. Clearly, 
for the best results with most people, we should 
be able to study the Bible through its most accurate 
text and in that form of the English language we use to- 
day. A number of recent translations have undertaken 
to bring this to pass. Among them is The New Testament 
in Modern Speech (Pilgrim Press, 1909), translated by 
Dr. R. F. Weymouth, which is peculiarly vivid and virile 



the Revised 
Version, 



and more 
recent transla- 
tions. 



HISTORICAL SOURCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 29 

for public reading. The Twentieth Century New Testament 
(Revell, 191 1), translated from the original Greek as 
given by the Resultant Text, which is used in practically 
all citations in this book, has striven hard to gain the 
exact force and meaning of every word in modem Eng- 
lish. The most recent work of this sort is the accurate, 
scholarly, and forceful New Translation of the New Testa- 
ment (Doran, Hodder, and Stoughton, 19 18) by Dr. 
James Moffatt. 

Summary. — Since Jesus is an historical character, the 
documents concerning him, together with the peculiari- 
ties of their writers, should be examined and compared 
without prejudice. The positions of both the verbal 
inspirationists and of the man who rejects the his- 
toricity of Jesus will, from this point of view, appear to 
be alike imtenable. Jesus himself wrote nothing, but the 
Sayings of Jesus seem to have been collected by the apos- 
tolic band about 35 a.d. The material of this work has 
been preserved in Matthew and Luke. Six Epistles of 
Paul were also produced (c. 50 a.d.) before the gospels. 
The earliest gospel was that of Mark (60-70 a.d.), 
which largely presents the imadomed recollections of 
Peter. The other two "synoptic " gospels, Matthew and 
Luke, written about 75-85 a.d., took their material 
mostly from Mark and the Sayings of Jesus, but suited 
it to their needs and put it in better literary form. Mat- 
thew stresses the divinity and Messiahship of Jesus; 
Luke, his hiunanity and social message. John, written 
much later (loo-iio a.d.), interprets Christianity in 
the terms of the Logos doctrine of Stoicism and Philo 
Judaeus, and magnifies the supernatural even more than 



3© WHAT DID JESUS TEACH.'' 

Matthew. There were other gospels, but they soon 
dropped out of use, and references to Jesus also appear 
in some non-Christian authors of the day. The earliest 
manuscripts of the New Testament date from about the 
fourth centxiry. The first printed text, the Compluten- 
sian, was begun in 15 14, but its appearance was antic- 
ipated by the edition of Erasmus (15 16). These two 
editions, made from comparatively late manuscripts, 
largely influenced all texts until the middle of the seven- 
teenth century, but since then the discovery of many 
thousand of the oldest manuscripts has produced more 
accurate versions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING » 

BuRKiTT, F. C. The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jems. 
Gilbert, G. H. Jesus. Part I and Indexes. 
Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapter I. 
GooDSPEED, E. J. The Story of the New Testament. Chapters 

I-X, XVII, and XX. 
Hunting, H. B. The Story of Our Bible. Chapters V-VII, 

X, and XI. 
Jones, M. The New Testament in the Twentieth Century. 
King, H. C. The Ethics of Jesus. Chapters III and IV. 
Lake, K. The Text of the New Testament. 
Mathews, Shailer. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus, 

Study I. 
Milligan, G. New Testament Documents. 
MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. Chapter I. 
Patton, C. S. Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. Especially 

Part I. 

*A more extensive bibliography, grouped by topics, will be 
found in the back of this book. The publishers and the date of 
publication of each book are given there. 



HISTORICAL SOXmCES FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 3 1 

pENNDiAN, JosiAH H. A Book obout the English Bible, Chap- 
ters I, III, VI, and XVI-XXI. 

Rall, H. F. New Testament History. Chapter XLII. 

Rhees, Rush. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth. Part I, Chap- 
ters II and III. 

Smyth, J. Paterson. How We Got Our Bible. 

Smyth, J. Paterson. The Bible in the Making. Part IV. 




CHAPTER n 

JESUS AS A TEACHER 

Emphasis in Mark upon Jesus as the Messiah. — 

From the discussion in the foregoing chapter it is evi- 
dent that two of the sources for the historic teachings 
of Jesus are somewhat older and more trustworthy than 
the others. These are The Sayings of Jesus, collected 
for the disciples when first going out to preach, and the 
primitive narrative of Mark, which was probably based 
upon the recollections of the apostle, Peter. All other 
sources are largely indebted to these earlier documents, 
and, in comparison with them, sink into relative insignifi- 
cance. Except as it appears in Matthew, Luke, and 
possibly Mark, the "Sayings" has been lost, and while 
it must have afforded vivid glimpses of the life and 
ministry of Jesus, it does not furnish us with the same 
opportunities for study as does Mark. If one will read 
this oldest of the gospels, after emptying his mind of all 
preconceptions, he is enabled to get a graphic imitary 
picture of Jesus as he appeared in the earliest Christian 

Mark's gospel commutiity. There is throughout the description a back- 
has a Messianic ... — ,. . e i n r * ^ i 

background. grouud of the Jewish expectations of the Messiah s com- 
ing and of the Kingdom of God. The narrative revels 
in the miraculous, with no apologetic attitude toward 
the supernatural, and the central figure is supernatural 
in character and function. In contrast to the attitude 
of this simple and primitive gospel, Jesus further appears 

32 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 33 

in ecclesiastical Matthew as the new teacher and law- 
giver, in sociological Luke as the humanitarian, and in 
Hellenistic John as the eternal "word/' Mark presents 
him as a Messianic enthusiast.* 

In Mark, Jesus is depicted first as proclaiming his 
message: "The time has come and the Kingdom of 
God is at hand; repent, and believe the Good News" 
{Mk, I, 15). This was a proclamation of the im- 
minence of the Messianic kingdom, and for the Jews 
of that day must have su^orested the apocalyptic ideas Mark depicts 

, , . -r^ . I T^ , , , J^sus proclaun- 

that had appeared m Darnel, Enoch, and a number mg the Kingdom 

■'•■'• ' ' as immuient, 

of similar works. Amid the religious crises and politi- 
cal oppressions through which the Jewish people had 
been passing, they were looking forward with con- 
fidence to a day when God should himself take over 
the dominion of the world, and they should, under the 
leadership of a Messiah, return to their pristine power 
and glory. This message of Jesus appears to have been 
very indifferently received in Galilee, and, while he felt 
that he was the Messiah-to-be, he realized that the time 
was not ripe, because the people were not ready. Hence 
he kept the secret of his Messiahship to himself, and is but keeping his 
even represented as forbidding the demons, who through secret. 
supernatural instinct realized the fact, to reveal it {Mk. 
I, 24, 34, 43 f.; HI, II f., etc.). Then, being further con- 
vinced that the suffering of the servant of the Lord 
(see Is. LIII) was an essential preliminary to the com- and going to 
ing of the kingdom, he set his face toward Jerusalem, fumu the proph- 
where he was to suffer, die, and rise again. 

*For a further discussion of this eschatological background, 
see pp. 134 flf. 



34 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

Modem Emphasis upon Jesus as a Teacher. — Such 
in outline is the simple Messianic message of the earliest 
gospel. In the eyes of these early disciples, through the 
crucifixion and resurrection of the Master, the Kingdom 
was to be inaugurated, and it was to be fully consum- 
mated later when he should come in power and glory.' 
But more help But to-day the world finds more consolation and help 

IS now found in "^ ^ ^ ^ 

&^M^th ^ ^^ moral and rehgious ideals and in the aspect of 
Jesus as a teacher. The parables of the Good Samaritan 
and the Prodigal Son, the summary of the Law as the 
love of God and one's neighbor, and the inward meaning 
of the Sermon on the Moxmt prove of the greatest in- 
spiration and most efficient guidance to us now, though 
they do not bulk large in the Messianic career portrayed 
in the earliest gospel. Undoubtedly Jesus was a child 
of his times, but in the form of Jewish Messianism we 
have the world's greatest religions genius and most in- 
fluential moral teacher. With this apocalyptic back- 
ground and framework in mind, we may, then, turn to 
a serious consideration of Jesus the teacher. 
^^°^us*Il^i°°' Jesus is often known in the gospels by the name 
teacher. ^f "tcacher." The Greek word, didaskdoSj which may 

properly be so rendered, although it has been more 
frequently translated "master," is used in the gospels 
nearly fifty times to indicate the character of his work. 
This usage is also supplemented in some eight or ten 
passages by such synonyms as the Aramaic rabbi or 
rabboni. The word for "teaching" or "doctrine" like- 
wise occurs occasionally, while the verb, "teach," is 
employed as frequently as all the other words together. 
And if we count such expressions as "said," "spoke," or 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 35 

"answered," which are not uncommonly used to indicate 
the informal teaching of Jesus, we find that the allusions 
of the sources to this fxmction of the Master number 
scarcely less than two hundred. 

Even a cursory view of the gospels shows that much of Ji^tte me^ 
Jesus' time was consiuned with teaching. He taught ^^^^^^o'^'^- 
publicly in the synagogues and the Temple, on the top of 
a hill and in a boat on a lake, and throughout the villages 
from Galilee to Jerusalem, while he constantly instructed 
his "disciples" (or pupils) privately. He realized that 
the only means of fully incorporating a new ideal into the 
life of the world and of effecting permanent reforms is to 
be found in teaching, and that specially trained men, 
such as he would require as supporters and followers in 
this work, could be produced only by a course of personal 
instruction. Emotions may be aroused and activities 
temporarily sustained and directed by occasional, brief 
appeals from the orator or preacher, but habits can be 
formed and a lasting impression produced only through 
the insistent stimuli furnished to plastic minds by a well- 
prepared and skillful teacher. 

His Fitness for Teaching. — Jesus has for centuries 
been known as The Great Teacher. This recognition 
of his superiority has been based upon the lofty and uni-/| 
versal nature of his lessons, the variety and skill of his' ' 
methods of teaching, the myriads of people his message 
has reached, and the marvelous changes it has accom- 
plished. For these labors and results Jesus was well fitted 
and prepared both by nature and training. If we may 
judge from his maimer of life and his achievements, he 
must have beenCwell developed physically. While all Jesui.^ ^^^ 



36 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



His natural 
sagacity was 
developed by 
training, 



and he obtained 
a mastery of 
Jewish life, 



that the gospels report of his bodily vigor is contained in 
such brief statements as: ''The child grew strong and 
wise, and the blessing of God was upon him" {Lk. II, 40), 
his ancestral occupation as a carpenter must have been 
salutary and sinew-buildiQg, and, without considerable 
vitality and strength iq manhood, he could scarcely have 
endured the great physical and mental strain required 
in his ministry. 

On the intellectual side, Jesus seems also to have 
been well prepared. Besides the testimony as to his 
wisdom in the quotation above, Luke (II, 52) repeats: 
''Jesus grew in wisdom as he grew in years, and 
gained the blessing of God and man." Jesus would 
seem to have had a fine mind and great sagacity 
by nature, and, although the evangelists are silent 
about the matter, these personal qualities must have 
been largely cultivated by communion with the natural 
scenery of the region in which he was reared and by' 
the informal intellectual and religious training of the^ 
Jewish family. He seems to have possessed the reflective 
and poetic temperament that is so characteristic of 
Oriental life and so favorable to the development of an 
ethical and rehgious teacher. Like Jewish boys generally, 
during his early years he must have been trained at home 
by his mother in the traditional religious observances, the 
stories of patriarchs, statesmen, warriors, poets, and 
prophets, and selections from the Scriptures. Later he 
came more under the influence of his father in the shop, 
and was probably further educated in the synagogue 
school of the vicinity. 

Thus he obtained a complete mastery of Jewish life, 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 37 

literature, and traditions, and was able to express him- 
self to his hearers with appropriateness and force. At 
the tip of his tongue he held historical allusions to illus- 
trate each point, and his knowledge was evidently deeper 
and broader, and his insight far keener, than that of the 
Jewish teachers of the day, who were supposed to be 
especially skilled in rabbinical methods and interpreta- 
tion. He saw so incisively into the questions at issue, 
and appreciated so clearly the real significance of words 
and ideas, that he seems to have completely overthrown 
his ecclesiastical opponents, whenever they resorted to 
their superficial applications and quibbling. We find 
him repeatedly revealing the spirit underlying the letter, 
and causing the narrow phase of an established custom 
to melt into a broader, by appealing to some traditional 
incident or an earlier law. In this way, for example, he 
distinguished the deeper motives out of which the pro- 
hibition of murder and adultery have grown {ML V, 
21 ff.), defended the use of the Sabbath for man by re- 
ferring to historical precedents (Mt. XII, i-8), and 
showed that any instability of the family was contrary to 
an older dispensation than that of Moses {Mk. X, 2-12), 

As the result of his early life, too, Jesus displayed a ^f'^nfe^Sd^'^^ 
marvelous knowledge of men and things, as well as of ^^'''^^ 
Jewish culture. As we shall see later, he adapted his 
teaching to the individuals concerned with the utmost 
skill, and he used illustrations from the life about him 
that were both intelligible and striking. His clear in- 
sight into the superficiality and failings of the Pharisees 
is evident in his teaching on the Mount {Mt. V and 
VI), while the revelation of himself to John the Bap- 



38 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

tist {Mt. XI, 4 ff.)j ^s rebuke of Simon the Pharisee 
{Lk. VII, 40 ff.)) i^s reply to Nicodemus (//z. Ill, 
2 ff.), and his message to Herod Antipas (Lk. XIII, 
31 ff.)j were in each case exactly adapted to the person, 
and most clear and convincing. All his parables likewise 
showed an intimate acquaintance with hmnan nature and 
a knowledge of common affairs. 
Again, his moral fitness for leadership through teaching 

His self-control IS most obvious. His sclf -coutrol and uaturalness iu cvcry 
incident are the best evidence of his sound character and 
fixity of purpose. The strength of his personality, with 
its calmness and poise, is in striking contrast to the per- 
turbed and flurried attitude of the disciples in times of 
stress. Their alarm during the tempest serves as but a 
foil to his complete command of the situation, and brings 
out clearly the lesson of faith he taught (Mk. IV, 35 ff.)* 
His self-possession is likewise shown in his quiet rebuke of 
James and John when they clamored for vengeance on the 
Samaritan village that did not welcome him (Lk. IX, 
52 ff.). And in similar fashion, at the time of his arrest, 
the agitation and abortive attempts at defense made by 
the disciples greatly heighten the dignity and control of 
the Master (Mk. XIV, 46 ff.; Lk. XXII, 47 ff.). 

The character of Jesus — fearless, devoted, sympa- 
thetic, tactful, and reKgious — is well expressed in his 
life, which he gave to service and sacrifice. He embodied 
J j the ideals and attainments he wished to produce in others. 

and the em- / jjc illustratcd his religious teaching by the constant 

bodiment of his ° o ^ 

teachings in his recognilion of his own need of the Father's presence. To 
God he appealed for help and to Him he made thanksgiv- 
ing. The requirement of love he also revealed in his own 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 39 

life. He continually sympathized with and met the needs 
of others. He fed the multitude, healed the sick and the 
mentally distracted, and hushed the moans of the an- 
guished. He treated despised people like the Samaritans 
with respect and imderstanding, and the woman of the 
street with kindness and consideration. Finally, he went 
to a hideous death rather than abate one jot or tittle 
from his high ideals. And even as he was dying, he 
uttered a prayer for his murderers. 

The Approach to the Study of His Teachings. — 
Surely no person in history was ever better fitted than 
Jesus to perform a great educational service. His mes- 
sage and procedure as a teacher will well repay anyone 
who imdertakes a careful study of them. But, before 
beginning the examination of his teachings, it may be 
worth while, as in the case of any great educator or 
educational period, to seek the best avenue of approach. 
The facts connected with such an investigation are so 
numerous and diverse that one is liable to be lost in 
the maze unless he holds some clew to guide him. The 
thread that may best lead one through the labyrinth of 
facts seems to lie along the way of inquiring first the 
purpose of the training he offered, for purpose always 
unifies the manifold acts and sa3dngs of a person by 
giving them meaning. 

A most important step, then, in studying the teach- 
ings of such an influential personage as Jesus, is to 
trace his educational aims, and in this connection en- jesus' educa- 
deavor to find out what attempt was made to realize 
them. This study of the means that the Great Teacher 
used to accomplish his educational purpose will include 



tional aim. 



40 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



content. 



method. 



organization, 



and results. 



The hastening 
of the Kingdom 
through "love" 
and "service." 



an investigation of at least three main topics, which 
are closely connected. In the first place, we must 
undertake to discover his educational content, or the 
doctrines and way of life he wished to teach. Then, 
some attention should be given to the method by which 
such instruction was imparted, although this may at 
first appear so informal that one would not readily per- 
ceive that Jesus used any definite method. Finally, 
it may be of value to investigate the organization or 
material means by which he expected to carry out his 
form of training. 

After the educational plan of Jesus is fairly under- 
stood in both its purpose and procedure, the inquiry 
should naturally be as to its results. Only as its effect 
upon civilization and the people who have come imder 
its influence is known, can its importance as a guide in 
life be rightly estimated. But all historical material, 
however interesting and valuable in other connections, 
which does not contribute to these ends of am, content, 
method, organization, and results, may safely be neg- 
lected, since it can throw but little light upon the work 
of Jesus as a teacher. 

The Educational Aim of Jesus. — First, let us con- 
sider his educational aim. This has both social and 
ethical aspects. The ideal society of the Kingdom of 
God was to be hastened by perfection of character. 
As guiding stars to his goal, he uttered the dual com- 
mand, to love God and one*s neighbor, and he declared 
that the supreme evidence of this love is found in serv- 
ice to one's fellows. Loyal service in the interest of 
one's home, commimity, and coimtry harmonizes with 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 4 1 

\he end he has in view, and at the same time this con- 
stitutes the means to attain real happiness. The enjoy- 
ment of life and Uberty and the pursuit of happiness 
both on the part of the individual and society, with 
Jesus, comes through social service. Hence the adop- 
tion and embodiment in human life of the Golden Rule: — 
"Do to others whatever you would wish them to do to 
you" (ML VII, 12), may be said to summarize the aim 
of all his teaching. 

The analysis of this aim will be further treated in 
another chapter (VI), but attention may here be called 
to its practicality and the emphasis upon carrying it 
into effect. It was his purpose to make worthy char- 5,"^^^^^^^ ^.^^^^ 
acters and noble lives and to improve society, rather than ceremonies. 
than to carry out traditional forms and ceremonies. 
''Unless your religion is above that of the Teachers of 
the Law and Pharisees," he declared, "you will never 
enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (ML V, 20). These 
ecclesiastical groups he criticized at length elsewhere 
(Mt. XXIII) because "they preach, but do not prac- 
tice" . . . "All their actions are done to attract atten- 
tion. They widen their phylacteries, and increase the 
size of their tassels, and like to have the place of honor 
at dinner, and the best seats in the synagogues, and to 
be greeted in the markets with respect, and to be called 
* Rabbi' by everybody." He continued with his famous 
excoriation of the scribes and Pharisees: "Hypocrites 
that you are, you clean the outside of the cup and of 
the dish, but inside they are filled with the results of 
greed and self-indulgence." 

In opposition to this formalism and pretension, Jesus 



42 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

insisted: "By the fruit of their lives you will know 
them" {ML VII, i6). And further he declared: ''Not 
every one who says to me, 'Master! Master!' will enter 
the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will 
of my Father who is in Heaven" (ML VII, 21). Like- 
wise he inquired: "Why do you call me * Master! 
Master!' and yet fail to do what I tell you?" {Lk. VI, 
46). So it will be that "many will say to me 'Master, 
Master, was it not in your name that we taught, and 
in your name that we drove out demons, and in your 
S^n practice?^ name that we did miracles? ' And then I shall say to 
them plainly ' I never knew you.' Go from my presence, 
you who live in sin" (ML VII, 22). And it was his 
emphasis upon the embodiment of ideals in practice 
that caused him to tell the young man of formal moral- 
ity: "If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your prop- 
erty and give to the poor" (ML XIX, 21), and, in dis- 
criminating the righteous from the unrighteous, to de- 
clare whoever fed, clothed, or comforted the poor did" 
it to the Master himseK {ML XXV, 34 ff.)- Thus the 
educational aim of Jesus was preeminently ethical and 
practical, and contemplated the regeneration of the. 
individual and society through service. 

The Content of His Instruction. — The content of 
the teachings by which Jesus hoped to accomplish this 
aim is more fully detailed in succeeding chapters (IV- 
Sd'andbfother- ^^^^) ' ^^ should, howcvcr, be stated here that it is 
hood of man, largely summed up in the fatherhood of God and the 
brotherhood of man, and in his conception of the King- 
dom of Heaven. God, he taught, is to be viewed as 
a protecting, pitying, and forgiving father, and men 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 43 

become his children in so far as they adopt these moral 
attributes. They can acquire such qualities through 
''love" and *' service" to their fellow men. The com- 
mon sonship to God, which may be secured by all men, 
constitutes them brothers. Jesus thus based morals 
upon religion, rather than the reverse. With him the 
development of the human soul into God's likeness 
could not be secondary to any other object, and he ab- 
horred sin as a rejection of a man's real self. Sin, he 
felt, was based upon the inner life, and was not a mere' 
violation of ceremonial, or anything purely external 
and technical. Hence, in view of man's divine sonship, 
he was exceedingly optimistic about the possibility of 
redirecting the lives of even erreat sinners. and membership 

^ rT^^ ' ,, . ,» . 7 7 r » ,.<. ^° *^« Kingdom 

' This conversion, or turning back of ones life to of Heaven. 
God, would lead to membership in his kingdom of 
Heaven. The divine Kingdom is necessarily the central 
theme in all his teaching, and he constantly sought to 
clarify its meaning, and to adapt his explanation to 
the mind with which he had to deal. It expanded and . 
supplemented the idea of a divine family by stressing 
its social side. It was to be gradually built by the striv- 
ing of individuals, with varying degrees of spiritual at- 
tainment, to reach it. The means of perfecting the 
character to this end was through coming in touch with 
Jesus as founder of the Kingdom and catching his spirit 
of love to God and service to man as far as one can. 
The Kingdom of God was, therefore, a present reality, 
as well as a future state, and at times he hoped for an 
immediate realization. 
Efis Methods of Teaching. -— The methods by which 



44 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

Jesus taught these great truths will be discussed in the 
next chapter (III), but, even at the risk of some repeti- 
tion, we can appropriately examine them in outline now. 
The underlying principles of his methods are skillfully 
concealed. However, it is clear that he regularly used 
a "problem" as the means of attracting attention and 

'^^robiem " Stimulating thought. His profound knowledge of hu- 
man nature and his command of a wide range of topics 
enabled him to adapt his message to each individual. 

tothefSduaf Somctimcs, however, he was obliged to defer his teach- 
ing, because of the mental or moral limitations of his 
hearers. Through his thorough acquaintance with their 
traditions he was especially able to reach the Jews by 
basing his teachings upon the Hebrew Scriptures, but 
he always emphasized their inner meaning. 

As regards the external form of his teaching, Jesus was 
at all times graphic and vivid. He everywhere employed 
proverbs and epigrams and figures of speech that would 
arouse attention and bum their way into the memory of 

proverbs and his hcarcrs. He developed the parable as the chief form 

epigrams, and ■*■ *• 

auegorils. ^"""^ ^^ ^^^ method, and this, by holding up one central idea 
in various lights, proved his greatest success. To judge 
from John's record, Jesus occasionally used allegories, 
as well as parables. He obviously accompanied his 
teachings by external acts as a method of objective 
emphasis. 

His Organization for the Work. — Jesus began his 
mission in Galilee upon the foundations laid by John the 
Baptist. Here he found an opportunity for contact with 
all sorts of people, and the work began to spread rapidly. 
Eventually he started a brotherhood at Capemaimi to 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 45 

assist him in his work. This typical community or con- 
gregation may be regarded as a species of organization. 
It was composed at first of twelve men carefully chosen 
for their ability and representative of various groups. gregau?n''"S 
Jesus insisted upon loyalty to the brotherhood and the '^ ^°^*^*^* 
work in most hyperbolical terms. For example, he de- 
clared: "If any man comes to me and does not hate his 
father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, 
yes and his very life, he can be no disciple of mine" {Lk. 
XIV, 26). And again he commanded a man, who ex- 
cused himself from following the Master on the score of 
having to bury his father: "Leave the dead to bury 
their dead; but go yourseK and carry far and wide the 
news of the Kingdom of God" {Lk. IX, 60). In con- 
sequence of the devotion and zeal that ensued there was 
a speedy increase in his followers, and, according to Paul ^ 
(I Cor. XV, 6), the earliest Christian witness, some 
five hundred persons, at least, at the close of the brief 
ministry of Jesus, were to be enumerated from the Ca- 
pernaum congregation and others like it. 

As, however, we shall see later (Chapter VIII), by 
gathering together his little group of disciples, Jesus in- ^Igj'^'hk"" ex- 
tended simply to foreshadow the Kingdom. It is not nee- fhe^*«church.»** 
essary to suppose that he meant to organizea_f ormal insti- 
tution with fixed and authoritative ritual and creed, such 
as is often indicated at present by the term " Church." 
But, whether he anticipated all the ofiicials and ceremo- 
nial or not, it was natural that some organization should 
be created. This would be simply building upon the 
social instincts of humanity and would afford the strength 
that springs from union. 



48 TVHAT DID JilSXJS TEACH? 

but his influence owii dav, and the impression his teachings have made but 

has been in- • i i i c . -r-r. i . i 

creasing ever dcepcns With the lapse of tmie. His teachings have 
become part of the social inheritance of the race, and have 
entered into the environment of all his heirs. While, as 
we shall see in a later chapter (IX), he probably never 
formulated any specific legislation for society, all reforms 
and progress ever since have been in keeping with the 
spirit of his teachings. In this sense, we may say that 
his ideals have broken down the artificial walls of social 
caste, effected the emancipation of serfs and slaves, ele- 
vated woman to her rightful place in the home and society 
at large, established education at public expense and 
places of worship for the masses, produced labor and 
public utility legislation and regulations for sanitation 
and public health, organized all types of charitable in- 
stitutions, and promoted missionary enterprises, sociolog- 
ical organizations, and peace conferences. And in the 
future the real achievements of civilization will be in 
harmony with the utterances of Jesus, the teacher. 

Summary. — While Jesus appears in the earliest gos- 
pel as a Messianic enthusiast, and the consunmiation 
of the Kingdom, with his coming in power and glory, is 
stressed, the world to-day finds more inspiration in the 
aspect of Jesus as the great moral and religious teacher. 
Jesus was most often known as a "teacher," and he was 
well fitted for educational labors in physique, intellect, 
and character. The best approach to his teachings is 
found in a study of his educational aim, content, method, 
organization, and results. His purpose was the establish- 
ment of the Kingdom of Heaven through the ideals of 
"love" and "service." To this end, he taught the father- 



JESUS AS A TEACHER 49 

hood of God and the brotherhood of man. His methods 
of teaching were informal and in harmony with the best 
ideas of to-day. As the material means of promoting his 
teaching, he organized his "congregation.'^ Society in 
his day and ever since has been greatly influenced by his 
principles. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING 

Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapters II and III. 

Hinsdale, B. A. Jesus as a Teacher. Chapters II-IX. 

Jenks, Jeremiah W. Social Significance of the Teachings of Jesus, 

Study II. 
Kent, C. F. The Social Teachings of the Prophets and Jesus, 

Chapter XVII. 
MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. 
Peabody, F. G. Jesus Christ and the Social Question. Chapter I. 
Rhees, Rush. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth. Part II, Chapter 

III; Part III, Chapter II. 
Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters III and IV. 
TiPSwoRD, H. M. Pedagogics of Jesus. Part I, Chapters I-IV; 

Part III. 
Wayland, J. W. Christ as a Teacher, 



CHAPTER III 

JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 

The Inforinality of Jesus* Teaching. — Every one who 
has been in school and college can recall at least one or 
two great teachers that he has had. These men or wo- 
men stand out clearly in his memory quite separate and 
distinct from the many others he has known. And yet 
if he were suddenly challenged to tell how they pro- 
duced this effect upon him, or what their methods of 
teaching were, he would for a moment at least find him- 
The great sclf nonpluscd. The fact of the matter is that a great 

teacher seems to , *^, 

have no method, tcachcr superficially seems to have no method. His 
approach is so informal and natural that he apparently 
has no plan, but that is simply because the highest type 
of art is the art which conceals art. No teacher has 
ever become a permanent success imless he has carefully 
thought out his method of presentation. He may for 
a time, or even at intervals, be able to show considerable 
teaching power, but he will be constantly meeting with 
occasions, or even long periods, when the bottom seems 
to drop out of his work. 

All this is certainly true of Jesus* teaching. Instead 
of resorting to the scholastic and set methods of teachers 
of his day, he taught most informally. He seized the 
psychological moment, whenever it arrived, — often 
when he was standing or sitting in the midst of a group. 

50 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 5 1 

For example, his important instruction on the Mount 
is thus introduced: *'When he had sat down, his dis- 
ciples came up to him; and he began to teach them" Jesus, never 

*^ . . . mentioned any 

(Mt. V, I f.). Again, with even less preamble, his teach- J^^^^^g p^^^ "» 
ing is thus recorded: ''Jesus, answering them, said" 
(Lk. VI, 3). Once, when the crowds were great, ''he 
got into a boat, and sat in it on the Sea" and taught the 
assembly on the shore (Mk. IV, i). And in all his teach- 
ing Jesus never mentioned any definite theory of develop- 
ment that he was following. He seems to have used no 
studied plan and formulated no series of lessons, but 
his great success as a teacher was, nevertheless, in no 
small measure due to his effective method of presenta- 
tion. He understood how to arouse the interest of all 
his hearers and cause them to think continuously with- 
out boring or tiring them. After this process of thinking 
was started, he skillfully impressed his most insistent 
thoughts upon them. 

His Use of the Problem with the Disciples. — Like 
all great teachers, Jesus felt that real thinking begins 
with a problem. We never stop to think, imtil we are 
obKged to do so by some obstruction to mental activity. 
As long as our consciousness moves along smoothly from Thinking always 

, . II. -I -I r 1 . begins with a 

one thing to another, there is no demand for productive problem, 
thinking. It is only when we run into s^ome genuine 
difficulty that we begin to reflect. In this Hes the signifi- 
cance of Aristotle's statement that "all knowledge starts 
in wonder," and of Henry Ward Beecher's advice to 
young preachers to "cultivate the surprise power." 
When the problem is once presented, the curiosity 
aroused, or a surprise developed, we are all eager to find 



52 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



and, in order to 
instruct, Jesus 
took advantage 
of existing per- 
plexities of his 
hearers, — first 
place in the 
Kingdom, 



Immortal Life: 



awakened 
queries, — 



a solution, gratify our inquisitive impulse, or seek for 
the sequel. 

Throughout his teaching Jesus seems continually to 
have taken advantage of such a stimulus to secure the 
interest of his hearers. Often he utilized a perplexity 
that had long been troubling them. When the disciples, 
for example, mistaking the nature of the Kingdom, 
queried who of them would be the greatest there, Jesus 
seized the opportunity of teaching service as the real 
test (Mk. rX, 34 ff.; Lk. XXII, 24 ff.). Similarly, to 
Peter's inquiry as to how often he should forgive his 
friend, when wronged by him, Jesus developed the lesson 
of infinite patience by means of the story of the unfor- 
giving servant {Mt. XVIII, 21 ff.). His method of teach- 
ing the disciples, as well as the rich young man, the 
responsibilities of wealth, is even more skillful. The man, 
in genuine doubt, threw himself upon his knees before 
Jesus and asked what he must do to gain Immortal Life. 
The Master recalled to him the formal test of the com- 
mandments, and when he declared that he had always 
observed these, laid before him the more positive and 
difficult requirement of self-sacrifice. Then, turning to 
the disciples, he showed them the danger of being en- 
grossed in worldly wealth, and, in response to their amaze- 
ment and inquiries, he taught anew the great value of 
membership in the Kingdom (Mk. X, 17 ff.). 

On the other hand, sometimes Jesus deliberately 
awakened the question in the minds of his disciples or 
others himself. "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" 
(Jn. XXI, 15) he asked Peter three times, and when 
that apostle was somewhat hurt and aroused by his 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 53 

insistence, he revealed to him the full consequences of JSltSip" °* 
his disdpleship. Sometimes the problem he raised is 
not directly expressed in the text, but, as in the case of 
the parable of The Sower, it is implied in the inquiry of 
the disciples as to why he spoke in parables and leads 
to Jesus' explanation of the metaphor (ML XIII, 4 ff.). f^^^ °^ "^^^ 
The most striking illustration of his method, however, 
is found in his conversation with the woman of Samaria 
at the well (Jn. TV, 7 ff.)* She is j&rst surprised at finding 
that he, a Jew, would speak to a Samaritan. Next, her 
interest is aroused concerning the "living water" that "i»vmg water"; 
will relieve her from thirst and toil, but still she does 
not grasp the situation. Then by a skillful question, 
followed by information concerning her private Hfe, the 
heart of the woman is reached. The discovery of the 
character of the person to whom she is talking, is fol- 
lowed by another question and further instruction, and 
the way is paved for the revelation of himself to her as 
the Messiah. 

His Utilization of Hostile Inquiries. — Not infre- 
quently, however, the most effective instruction was 
given by Jesus in his reply to some incisive inquiry of 
hostile critics. They had raised the question in the hope 
of making him trouble or impaling him upon the horns 
of a dilenuna. In his various encounters with the Phar- 
isees, Sadducees, Herodians, and scribes, not only was 
the animus of his opponents exposed and silenced (ML 
XXII, 46), but, as a result of the attention attracted, 
a favorable occasion for teaching some important lessons 
was afforded. The disregard of his disciples for formal 
observances and ceremonial, such as fasting or purifi- 



54 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

cation {Mk. II, i8 Q. and VII, 2S,), sometimes gave his 
enemies an opportunity to raise questions intended to 

of^^u^tiiized_ques- discrcdit him, but Jesus refuted the implied criticisms 

critics,— and used the occasion for the teaching of much higher 

ideals. Often an attempt seems to have been made to 
show that his attitude toward the Sabbath was sacrile- 
gious. The Pharisees asked why his disciples were al- 

breaking the lowcd to pluck com on the Sabbath (Mk. II, 23 ff.; ML 
XII, I ff.) or why he effected cures on the sacred day 
(Mk. Ill, I S.;ML XII, 9 R.;Lk. XIII, 10 ff.; XIV, 5 ff.), 
but in each instance their shaft was turned aside by his 
citing some analogous instance either from their eccles- 
iastical history or from everyday life, and then the true 
meaning of the Sabbath was expounded. Jesus sub- |j 
stituted for the institutional conception its physical and ' ' 
^ ^noral value for the individual. Instead of a day of 
repression and bondage, with the sweeping ancient pro- 
hibitions, he made it God's good gift to man, a day of 
rest and growth, with a rich and positive significance. 

More subtle was the logical puzzle that was pro- 
pounded to Jesus by the Sadducees in the supposititious 

the woman with casc of the womau who had married seven husbands 

seven husbands, 

(Mk. XII, 19 ff.). ''At the resurrection whose wife will 
she be?" they inquired. They hoped thus to show the 
absurdity of a life beyond the grave, but the Master 
easily disposed of their contention by asserting a great 
spiritual truth and corroborating it from their own Scrip- 
tures. "Is not the reason of your mistake," answered 
Jesus, "your ignorance of the Scriptures and of the 
power of God? When men rise from the dead, there is 
no marrying or being married; but they are as angels in 



i 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 55 

Heaven. As to the dead and the fact that they rise, 
have you never read in the Book of Moses, in the passage 
about the Bush, how God spake to him thus — *I am 
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob'? He is not God of dead men, but of 
living. You are greatly mistaken." 

But probably the most skillful use of material fur- 
nished by his enemies and the instance most often quoted, 
is found in the incident where the Pharisees tried to in- 
volve Jesus in a political dilemma {Mk. XII, 13 ff . ; Mt. 
XXII, 15 £f.; Lk. XX, 20 f.). "Are we right in paying 
taxes to the Emperor or not?" they asked, expecting to ^^l^^J-l^^^ *° 
put him in bad odor with the Herodians or the Roman 
government, according as he answered ''yes" or "no." 
But, instead of giving a categorical reply, Jesus called for 
a silver coin and asked: "Whose head and title are 
these?" "The Emperor's," they said. "Then," Jesus 
replied, "pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Em- 
peror, and to God what belongs to God." By this means 
he disowned any political partisanship and revealed the 
essentially spiritual nature of his mission. "And they 
wondered at him." 

His Profound Knowledge of Human Nature. — Thus 
Jesus constantly displayed consummate ability in util- 
izing a question to arouse interest, and in raising iso- 
lated questions and cases to the level of some great prin- 
ciple and making them the occasion for impressive dec- 
larations of profound religious truths. In all these cases, 
whether dealing with honest seekers after truth or mere 
controversialists that had to be silenced, the Master, 
a,fter the fashion of every great teacher, showed a pro- 



56 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



Jesus' under- 
standing of 
men's motives. 



as revealed in 
the cospels, 



found knowledge of human nature. He saw into the 
hearts of all men with a keenness that has scarcely been 
equaled by the greatest educators of modem times — Pes- 
talozzi, Thomas Arnold, Horace Mann — and the skillful 
dialectic, by which he developed the truth or error of the 
inmost thoughts of humanity, and showed them to be 
but one phase of the entire truth, was worthy of his fa- 
mous pagan forerunner, Socrates. This insight into the 
mental constitution and motives of men was repeatedly 
revealed both in defining the problem and assisting the 
questioner to solve it through the apparent medium of 
his past experience and history. Discovering the soul 
experiences of each person with whom he came in con- 
tact, he led them out into an harmonious development, 
and thereby produced a imity of personality and a reali- 
zation of the ideal society. 

Jesus' remarkable intuition and knowledge of mental 
processes is repeatedly indicated in the introduction to 
his various sayings. In the gospels we frequently read 
such phrases: ."Knowing their thoughts,^ Jesus ex- 
claimed" {ML IX, 4); "Jesus, however, was aware of 
what was passing in their minds, and said to them" {ML 
XII, 25) ; "Jesus, however, knew what was in their minds, 
and said" {Lk. VI, 8); "Jesus, knowing of the discussion 
that was occupying their thoughts, took hold of a little 
child, and placed it beside him, and then said to them" 
{Lk. IX, 47); "When Jesus became aware of the way in 
which they were debating" {Lk. V, 22); "Knowing their 
hyprocrisy, Jesus said to them" {Mk. XH, 15); "Jesus 
knew from the first who they were that did not believe in 
him and who it was that would betray him; and he 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 57 

added" {Jn. VI, 64). And his natural insight is crys- 
tallized in that passage from the Fourth Gospel (II, 25) : 
"He could read every heart, and he did not need that 
others should tell him what men were; for he could of 
himself read what was in men." 

The Adaptation of His Method to the Individual 
Cases. — Thus, reading the thoughts and feelings of all 
with whom he came in contact, Jesus adapted his stim- 
ulus to the needs of each particular individual. The 
questions he asked and the material he presented varied 
in keeping with the age, race, afl&liation, temperament, 
and experience of the person he was addressing. To a 
great extent he determined the methods he used by their 
mental dispositions, — whether they were ready hearers, 
bearing even as close a relationship as the disciples, or 
were captious and controversial, actually hostile, or detennined the 

*^ 7 ./ 7 methods used in 

merely indifferent. But while much of his teaching was **<=^ *=**«'— 
adapted to their general attitude, there were many 
other factors to be considered in each case and an infinite 
variety of treatment was required. Consequently, his 
range of topics seems to have been almost unlimited. 
He appealed to the book of Nature, quite as much as to 
the book of the Law; to persons and things, as well as to 
books. He referred to the present and past, the near 
and remote, the concrete and abstract. 

The illustrations that Jesus used impressed his hearers 
through their simplicity, directness, and familiarity, and 
greatly illumined and focused his thought. He made 
numerous applications of everyday matters and inci- 
dents, and utilized current activities, social and indus- ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ 
trial, as material for his illustrations. The metaphors [JSioS. '"""" 



S6 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



Jesus' under- 
stand iag of 
men's motives, 



as revealed in 
the gospels, 



found knowledge of human nature. He saw into the 
hearts of all men with a keenness that has scarcely been 
equaled by the greatest educators of modem times — Pes- 
talozzi, Thomas Arnold, Horace Mann — and the skillful 
dialectic, by which he developed the truth or error of the 
inmost thoughts of humanity, and showed them to be 
but one phase of the entire truth, was worthy of his fa- 
mous pagan forerunner, Socrates. This insight into the 
mental constitution and motives of men was repeatedly 
revealed both in defining the problem and assisting the 
questioner to solve it through the apparent medium of 
his past experience and history. Discovering the soul 
experiences of each person with whom he came in con- 
tact, he led them out into an harmonious development, 
and thereby produced a imity of personality and a reali- 
zation of the ideal society. 

Jesus' remarkable intuition and knowledge of mental 
processes is repeatedly indicated in the introduction to 
his various sayings. In the gospels we frequently read 
such phrases: ."Knowing their thoughts, Jesus ex- 
claimed" (ML rX, 4); "Jesus, however, was aware of 
what was passing iq their minds, and said to them" (ML 
Xn, 25) ; "Jesus, however, knew what was in their minds, 
and said" (Lk. VI, 8); "Jesus, knowing of the discussion 
that was occupying their thoughts, took hold of a Uttle 
child, and placed it beside him, and then said to them" 
(Lk. IX, 47); "When Jesus became aware of the way in 
which they were debating" (Lk. V, 22); "Knowing their 
hyprocrisy, Jesus said to them" (Mk. XH, 15); "Jesus 
knew from the first who they were that did not believe in 
him and who it was that would betray him; and he 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 57 

added" {Jn. VI, 64). And his natural insight is crys- 
tallized in that passage from the Fourth Gospel (II, 25) : 
"He could read every heart, and he did not need that 
others should tell him what men were; for he could of 
himself read what was in men." 

The Adaptation of His Method to the Individual 
Cases. — Thus, reading the thoughts and feelings of all 
with whom he came in contact, Jesus adapted his stim- 
ulus to the needs of each particular individual. The 
questions he asked and the material he presented varied 
in keeping with the age, race, aMiation, temperament, 
and experience of the person he was addressing. To a 
great extent he determined the methods he used by their 
mental dispositions, — whether they were ready hearers, 
bearing even as close a relationship as the disciples, or 
were captious and controversial, actually hostile, or determiaed the 

^ f J ^ methods used in 

merely indifferent. But while much of his teaching was '^^^^^^ *=^'— 
adapted to their general attitude, there were many 
other factors to be considered in each case and an infinite 
variety of treatment was required. Consequently, his 
range of topics seems to have been almost imlimited. 
He appealed to the book of Nature, quite as much as to 
the book of the Law; to persons and things, as well as to 
books. He referred to the present and past, the near 
and remote, the concrete and abstract. 

The illustrations that Jesus used impressed his hearers 
through their simplicity, directness, and familiarity, and 
greatly illumined and focused his thought. He made 
numerous applications of everyday matters and inci- 
dents, and utilized current activities, social and indus- ^^^^ gj^^pj^ ^^^ 
trial, as material for his illustrations. The metaphors SS. *"''" 



$8 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

based upon organic life that were employed in his "bread 
of life" {Jn. VI, 35), "true vine and the branches" {Jn. 
XV, i), "salt of the earth" {Mt. V, 13), "Hght of the 
world" {Mt. V, 14), and similar expressions must have 
made a universal appeal. Likewise, his allusions to 
social customs of the times, such as the arrangement of 
the seating at a feast or wedding according to social 
status, to make humility concrete {Lk. XIV, 7 ff.)? the 
necessity for dress suitable to the occasion, to teach spir- 
itual fitness {Mt. XXII, 11 ff.), and the invitations 
given to those who could reciprocate, as a contrast to the 
motive of unselfish kindness {Lk. XIV, 12 £[.), were within 
the experience of every one. Similarly effective were 
his figurative references to industrial life, such as the 
sower or spreading the truth {Mt. XIII, 4 ff.), the 
tares or opposition that the truth was bound to meet 
{Mt. XIII, 25 fi.)> the mustard seed or remarkable 
spread of truth {Mt. XIII, 32), and the leaven or natural 
development of truth {Mt. XIII, 33). The people of 
Jesus' day would, too, have instantly recognized the 
significance of the discovery of a buried treasure by a 
farmer {Mt. XIII, 44), the securing of pearls by deep- 
sea diving {Mt. XIII, 45 f. )? the separation of fish taken 
in a net {Mt. XIII, 47 ff.)> the thief and the shepherd 
{Jn. X, I ff.), the especial need of the sick for a doctor 
{Mt. IX, 12), and the comer stone of a foundation {Lk. 
XX, 17). 

Sometimes, however, he recognized that his hearers 
were so limited spiritually that it would be impossible 
for them to grasp his meaning. For example, it is re- 
corded that "Jesus used to speak to the people of his 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 59 

message, as far as they were able to receive it" {Mk. 
rV, 33). He himself said: "It is not every one who can 
accept this teaching, but only those v/ho have been 
enabled to do so. . . . Let him accept who can" {Mt, 
XIX, II f.). Again, according to the Fourth Gospel, f^ "^r foZ 
he declared: "I have stiU much to say to you, but you hkSachhlr^^ 
cannot bear it now" {Jn. XVI, 12). At times the limi- 
tation would appear to be emotional, and Jesus seems 
to feel that his teachings could not be received because 
of the moral disposition of certain hearers. John de- 
picts him as saying: "My teaching is not my own; it is 
his who sent me. If any one is willing to do God's will, 
he will find out whether my teaching is from God" 
{Jn. VII, 17). But whenever he was obliged to with- 
hold his teachings, because those about him were un- 
prepared or unworthy to receive them, he strove by 
careful selection and repetition of material, and choice 
of methods and illustrations, to build up an understand- 
ing and interest in them. This is especially seen in the 
case of his slow-minded disciples, who could not under- 
stand how his teachings differed from certain current 
Messianic conceptions. 

His Recognition of " Apperception." — Thus through- 
out his teaching Jesus recognized that every new 
idea or group of ideas can be grasped only through 
those already in consciousness. The method of teaching 
based upon this has been utilized by every successful 
educator. Even the "natural-bom" teacher, who 
prides himself upon being enslaved to no patent method, 
relies for his results largely upon an appeal, conscious j^^^g ^^^^^^ 
or unconscious, to the pupil's previous experience. The '^^percepu^"^ 



6o WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

principle underlying this method was called "apper- 
ception," by the great philosopher, Herbart. The first 
step in the Herbartian method of instruction, "prepara- 
tion," depends upon it, and it forms the central doctrine 
of his entire educational system. There is, however, 
nothing new in the principle, and, although the activity 
side has come to be emphasized by the term, "associa- 
tion" or "assimilation" would have expressed the idea 
quite as well. In accordance with this doctrine, the 
teacher can hope to secure interest and the attention of 
the pupil to any new idea or set of ideas and have him 
retain it, only through making use of his body of related 
knowledge. Hence, in his teaching, Jesus is always 
concerned in presenting new material in such a way 
that it can be "apperceived" or incorporated with the 
old. In each case, however, he seems to feel that this 
appeal to similar ideas in the pupil, as we have seen 
(pp. 51 f.), can be effected only by means of a problem, 
which is a necessity that Herbartianism has failed to 
recognize. 

Most of those among whom Jesus taught were Jews, 
and, being of the same origin, he was able to imderstand 
the content of their "apperception mass." He was 
acquainted with the workings of their mind, their na- 
tional religion, sects, and factions, the character of 
their teaching, their political ambitions, and other 
traditions, and was able to use this knowledge effectively 
in his instruction. He did not repudiate the Judaistic 
laws, customs, and beliefs, but developed the spiritual, 

by reinterpreting ^ruth in them and insisted upon their inner meaning. 

&rip?i^M!~ He generally based his teachings upon the Hebrew 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 6l 

Scriptures and illustrated and reenforced his truths by 

an appeal to their authority, but he allied himself with 

the moral interpretation of the prophets, rather than 

with the legalistic tendencies of the scribes. He treated 

the Hebrew writings not as a body of rules, but as a 

revelation of God's purpose, and stressed their essence 

more than their form. He strove to remove the external 

element and reveal the imderlying truth. 

One of the best examples of this new emphasis upon 

old material is found in the case of Sabbath observance, sabbath ob- 
servance, 

already mentioned (p. 54). This "day of rest" was 
strictly construed imder the old Law (see Ex. XX, 
8ff.; XXm, 12; XXXI, 12 ff.; XXXIV, 21; XXXV, 
iff.; Deut. V, 12 ff.), and was later elaborated by the 
scribes, but Jesus allowed his disciples to pluck com 
on that day {Mk. II, 23 ff.; Mt. XII, i ff.), and defended 
his action by appealing to ecclesiastical precedent. He 
then added his own principle that the Sabbath is not 
an end in itself, but a means to an end, — man's real 
interest and needs. Jesus' attitude toward sacrifice, 
the central feature of the Jewish ceremonial, was simi- 
lar. He attended the feasts of the Passover and the 
Tabernacles, and other festivals where sacrifices were 
offered {Mk. XXII, 7 ff.; Jn. IV, 45; V, i; VI, 4; VII, 
2ff.; XI, 55 f.; XIII, 29), but while he recognized the 
customs, he sought through them to lead his hearers 
to a love of God and mercy toward their fellows. "To 
love God," he declared, "with all one's heart, and with 
all one's imderstanding, and with all one's strength, 
and to love one's neighbor as one loves oneself is far 
beyond all burnt-offerings and sacrifices" {Mk. XH, 



sacrifices. 



62 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

33). In the Sermon on the Mount he enjoined his 
followers to be reconciled to any of their fellows they 
had wronged before performing the sacrifices {ML V, 
23 f.). Later, he twice recalled God's preference for 
mercy to sacrifice {ML IX, 13; XII, 7). Again, in re- 
gard to fasting, which was considered such a mark of 
piety among the Jews {Lk. XVIII, 12), Jesus did not 
issue a prohibition, but he brought out the inner mean- 
ing of real contrition by requesting: ''When one of you 
fasts, let him not be seen by men, but by his Father 
who dwells in secret" {ML VI, 18). The Jewish law 

clean," ^^ ^' ^^ ''clcau and unclean" he likewise explained as appli- 
cable only in a moral and rehgious sense by saving: 
''It is what comes out from a man that defiles him, for 
it is within, out of the hearts of men, that there come 
evil thoughts" {ML VII, 20 f.). 

This tendency of Jesus to build the new upon the old 
by bringing out its spiritual significance is seen in his 
method of dealing with the moral commands of Judaism, 
as well as with its observances. Here he frequently 
contrasted his own interpretation of the spirit of a 
commandment with the old literal form. Thus, while 

murder, the traditional law read, "Thou shalt not commit mur- 

der," and "Whoever commits murder shall be Hable 
to answer for it to the (local) court," he maintained 
that the fault lies in the moral condition that may lead 
to murder, and declared {ML V, 22) that "any one who 
cherishes anger against his brother shall be liable to 
answer for it to the Messianic court." His attitude 

adultery, toward thc prohibition of adultery was similar, for he 

held that "any one who looks at a woman with an im- 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 63 

pure intention has already committed adultery with 

her in his heart'' {ML V, 28). Again, he stated that 

not only must one not break his oath, but he must 

keep his word and hold it sacred and inviolate without 

swearing to it (Mt. V, 33). He further maintained 

that the old exaction of '^an eye for an eye and a tooth 

for a tooth" should yield to the principle of patient ^^ vengeance, 

endurance {ML V, 38). More characteristic than all 

was his universalizing the sphere of kindliness, and 

extending the command of love to enemies as well as 

neighbors {Mt. V, 43 ff.)- 

His Principle of " Fulfillment." — This use of "ap- 
perception," or the formation of "a bond between the 
new and the old," as it is generally described in modern 
pedagogy, was referred to by Jesus in his principle of 
''fulfillment" or completion. As an introduction to 
the instances just quoted, Matthew (V, 17) records him 
as saying: "Do not think that I have come to do away, 
with the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to do l]^°^^ ^^°S^ 
away with them, but to complete them." In some cases, 
however, Jesus frankly treated the traditional practice ^*^°^ 
as preparatory and partial, suitable legislation for the 
times, but, with the advance of civilization, somewhat 
subject to revision. This is indicated especially in his 
reply to the question concerning divorce {Mk. X, 2 ff.). 
"It was owing to your hardness of heart," said Jesus, 
" that Moses gave you this direction." Then he cited 
an earlier law and added: "What God himself has 
yoked together, man must not separate." Such an 
attitude appears to be largely true, too, of his dis- 
placement of "an eye for an eye," "hating one's ene- 



the traditional 
practice as prep- 



64 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

mies," and other modifications of the old law mentioned 
above. 

This enrichment, and at times even modification, of 
the traditional Law is a distinctive feature of Jesus' 
method. While he based much of his teaching upon the 
current principles, he was never satisfied merely with 
the authority of the past. With him the new was of 
even more importance than the old. He emphasized 
the inner meaning of the observances and commands 
of Judaism, and insisted upon a more complete revela- 
tion of the love of God. All six passages dealing with 
his "fulfillment" of the Jewish Law, are introduced 
with the words: "You have heard that it was said, but 
I say to you" {ML V, 21 f.; 27 f.; 31 f.; 33 f.; 38 f.; 43 f.). 
2Sibes"°^^* ^^* Therein his teaching differed radically from that of the 
scribes, who made legaUstic renderings after much study 
of the Law and the body of tradition. They quoted, 
inferred, and gave allegorical interpretations of a mooted 
passage, quibbling over external matters, like the 
breadth of phylacteries, the ceremonial washing of cups, 
jugs, and copper pans, and the tithing of mint, anise, 
and cumin, but lacked in spontaneity, freshness, vigor, 
and originality. Their adherence to precedent and 
authority was slavish. Li contrast to this, Jesus seems 
not so much to borrow and make inferences from the 
traditional Law as to speak from conviction or an intui- 
tion of the truth. Li his teaching, there is no delay or 
hesitation, no feeble reasoning and cautious deduction, 
but a flashing of conviction. He seems to assume that 
the truths he uttered were truths of man's own nature 
and were not to be made more evident by argument. 



JESUS* METHODS OF TEACHING 65 

He speaks with a finality that has made his principles 

seem inevitable to the human conscience of every age 

and under all circumstances; they contain a certain 

urgency that renders them impressive and solemn. 

Hence we are not surprised to learn that in the syna- authSrit^^of *° 

gogue at Capernaum, "the people were amazed at his ^^sown. 

teaching, for he taught them like one who had authority, 

and not like the Teachers of the Law'' {Mk. I, 22). 

His Use of Epigrams and Aphorisms. — Looking to 
the external form in which Jesus clothed his teachings, 
it has been easy to see that he largely used epigrammatic 
and aphoristic expressions. He uttered sententious 
maxims, gnomes, or proverbs, and his language was 
often paradoxical and hyperbolical. These types of The external 

\ ^ "^ *■ ^ ^ "^ ^ forms of Jesus 

expression, which were characteristic of the Orient in teaching were 

^ ' always prover- 

general and of the Jews in particular, are especially atiie,*"^^ ^^^' 
adapted to ethical and religious teaching. Jesus used 
them with complete mastery and great efficiency. 
Numerous sayings of this sort will at once occur to any 
student of the gospels. Such, for example, were the 
numerous suggestions he made through a contrast of 
the higher and lower meaning of terms, such as: "Who- 
ever wishes to save his life, will lose it, and whoever, for 
my sake and for the sake of the Good News, will lose 
his life, shall save it" {Mk, VHI, 35); "many who are 
first now will then be last, and the last will be first" 
{Mk. X, 31; Mt. XX, 16); "many are called, but few 
chosen" {Mt. XXH, 14); and "every one who exalts 
himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself 
wiU be exalted" {Lk. XIV, 11). 
A somewhat different, but equally attractive, type 



66 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

of expression is that furnished by the metaphorical 
allusions of Jesus to everyday life. This would include 
a number of aphorisms found in Mark, among which 
may be cited: ^'It is not those who are in health that 
need a doctor, but those who are ill. I did not come to 
call the religious, but the outcast" (II, 17). ''No man 
ever sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; 
if he does, the patch tears away from it — the new from 
the old — and a worse rent is made. And no man ever 
puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine 
will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins 
are lost" (II, 21 f.). ''When a kingdom is divided 
against itself, it cannot last; and when a household is 
divided against itself, it will not be able to last" (III, 24). 
This figurative and epigrammatic type of speech 
appears everywhere throughout the teaching of Jesus, 
dM ifo\ fdJpt^* ^^^ ^^^ statement in the form of a story or parable, 
the parable. which is SO characteristic of him, was not used at first. 
• Early in his ministry he proclaimed the great facts of 

the gospel — the forgiveness of sins, the Kingdom of 
God, the call to discipleship and sonship — to large 
crowds, and made his declarations in direct terms. But 
the results of his first preaching tours were most dis- 
couraging. There was an almost total want of response 
from the masses of the people, and even those nearest 
to Jesus failed to understand, while the opposition of 
the Pharisees became increasingly bitter. Consequently, 
he felt more and more impelled to narrow the persons 
addressed to the disciples and to adopt a more effective 
method of teaching than that of direct and immediate 
statement. This concentration of his audience did not 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 67 

imply that he was any less interested in all mankind, 
but the Step was taken in the hope of securing a nucleus 
for his message by the intensive culture of a few devoted 
followers. He felt that a special training was needed 
to elucidate thoughts that were so far in advance of the 
times. 

His Adoption and Mastery of the Parable. — The 
method chosen for communicating this training was that 
of the parable. This form of teaching was in common 
use among the Jews, but it was mastered by Jesus to such 
an extent as to make it peculiarly his own. While its 
material is not necessarily historic or real, but is often 
fictitious and invented, it is always harmonious with na- The parables of 
ture and life, and at least within the bounds of probabil- [ate real events. 

, * but are m har- 

ity. A parable does, moreover, distinguish between its °^o°y ^i^h life, 
essence or underlying spiritual truth and the mere form 
of its story, as a myth, which identifies the truth with 
its own creations, does not. It differs from a fable in 
beiQg more serious and dignified, and in its adaptation to 
moral and religious instruction. A parable cannot, on 
the other hand, be interpreted entirely as an allegory, 
with each character and incident treated as a special 
symbol. The attempt of some literalists to do this has 
been productive of most fanciful results. Each parable 
is intended to teach one single truth, and the point may 
rest in the entire picture or in some single aspect, and it 
is not essential to offer any explanation of the rest. The 
parables would be ruined, if forced to "go on all fours." 
The parable was used by Jesus as the most convenient 
instrument at hand for conveying to a few the secret of 
his Messiahship, without disclosing it to the many. The 



68 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

imminence of the Kingdom and its small and obscure 
beginnings, as contrasted with its ultimate and certain 
triumph, are all readily portrayed through the parabolic 
^SilteT to^'at- i^e^^iiii- Their form was such as to attract attention, 
aS^ii^press'the causc reflection, and impress the memory of the hearer, 
memoiy. rpj^^ radical teachings of the Master could not be grasped 

superficially or hastily, and the picturesqueness of the 
parable was adapted to holding the truth in men's minds 
until they grew to the point of understanding it. And it 
not only preserved the revelation for those not yet pre- 
pared to receive it and kept them from closing their 
minds to it, as a direct presentation could not have done, 
but through its attractiveness it gave permanence and 
currency to the teachings contained therein. Hence it 
is recorded that "the mass of people Ustened to Jesus 
with delight" (Mk. XII, 37), and "were filled with amaze- 
ment at his teaching" {ML VII, 28), and that the officers 
who were sent to arrest him declared: "No man ever 
spoke as he speaks!" {Jn. VII, 46). 
The recorded parables of Jesus begin with that of The 
?i;f s^rrlSS Sower (ML IV, 3 ff.; ML XHI, 3 ff.; Lk, VIII, 5 ff.), 
SLb^rf^ "" which he spoke to the great multitude by the sea and 
afterward interpreted for his closest followers. This 
method of teaching proved most successful, and we are 
told: ''with many such parables Jesus used to speak 
to the people of his Message as far as they were able to 
receive it; and to them he never used to speak except in 
parables; but in private to his own disciples he explained 
everything" (Mk. IV, 33 f.). There are some thirty of 
these parable stories recorded in the gospels.^ They 
1 There are at least forty, if we count such "parable germs" 



JESUS' METHODS OP TEACHING 69 

hold up in various and striking lights one central idea. 
In a dozen of them the Kingdom of God is directly com- *^|y centST"* 
pared to something to indicate its coming expansibility riou"? 'f^hS, '"^' 
and universality, but often the parable deals more in- ^^ 
directly with the membership of the Kingdom, as in the 
case of the seed of the sower aheady mentioned, the sons 
asked to labor in the vineyard (ML XXI, 28 ff.)> or the 
returning prodigal (Lk. XV, 12 iff.)* They often occur in 
pairs, or even in clusters, in order to teach two or more often occur in 
closely related aspects of the same general truth, or sim- 
ply to reenforce each other. Thus Mark (IV, 26 £f.) has 
in juxtaposition the Kingdom of God likened to the nat- 
ural growth of a seed and to the expansion of a grain of 
mustard seed, while Matthew (XIII, 24 ff.) enlarges the 
comparison so as to embrace the parables of The Tares, 
The Mustard Seed, and The Leaven. Similarly, we have 
in Luke (XV, 4 ff.) the group of parables of The Lost 
Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Lost Son. 

His Use of the Allegory in the Fourth Gospel. — The 
Fourth Gospel introduces a variation in the method of 
Tesus^ teaching. This is the allegory, which differs from in John, jesus 

uses the allegory. 

the parable in absolutely identifying the symbol with the which is a va- 
thing symbolized and containing a more extended dis- parable. 
cussion. Possibly the best illustration of it is found in 
the lengthy description of Jesus both as the Good Shep- 
herd and as the Door of the Sheepfold in the tenth chap- 
as the "new cloth on an old garment/' the "new wine in old 
bottles," and the "candle under a bushel," which were in some 
instances spoken before Jesus' real use of parable stories began. 
Of the forty, thirty are recorded in one gospel only, three in two 
gospels, and seven in all three synoptics. 



7© "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

ter of John. In this occur a number of beautiful and 
familiar passages, such as: "Whoever does not go into 
the sheepfold through the door, but climbs up at some 
other place, that man is a thief and a robber; but the man 
who goes in through the door is shepherd to the sheep . . . 
I am the Door for the sheep. All who came before me 
were thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not listen 
to them. . . . The thief comes only to steal, to kill, and 
to destroy ; I have come that they may have Life, and may 
have it in greater fullness. I am the Good Shepherd. 
The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." 
The allegorical discussions occur only in John, and there 
is some doubt as to whether this extended form of teach- 
ing was actually employed by Jesus, or is due to the 
peculiar nature of a comparatively late gospel (seep. 21). 
It may, however, have occasionally formed part of Jesus' 
uhi ^SKiive-' method. While not as crisp and succinct as the parable, it 
**^^" may well have proved effective for much the same reasons. 

The Accompaniment of Outward Action. — Jesus often 
accompanied his teaching with a demonstration through 
outward action. In fact, this may be considered one 
form of his method. An example of this procedure is 
seen in the way he "took a little child and placed it in 
Jesu^s^^ften^em- the middle of the disciples." Then, "folding it in his 
pro?rkte actioS" ^^^15," hc cmphasizcd the necessity of childlikeness in 
those who would be members of his Kingdom (Mk, IX, 
36 f.). In like fashion, an object lesson in humility was 
given his disciples by washing their feet (Jn. XITE, 4 ff.). 
Such illustrations of their teaching through gestures and 
external acts of necessity form part of the method of all 
successful teaching. 



JESUS' METHODS OF TEACHING 7 1 

Summary. — In his teaching Jesus was informal, and, 
like all great teachers, seemed to be using no set method. 
He realized, however, the need of raising a problem, and 
he often utilized a perplexity of long standing, awakened 
a query himself, or seized upon some hostile inquiry. 
He was enabled to do this through his profound knowl- 
edge of human nature, as witnessed by the introductions 
to various sayings of his in the gospels. He adapted his 
stimulus to each individual and employed a wide range of 
topics, but sometimes had to defer his teaching, because 
of the mental or moral limitations of his hearers. Hence 
he recognized the importance of the principle afterward 
called "apperception" by Herbart. He especially under- 
stood the traditions of the Jews, who composed most of 
his hearers, and often based his teachings upon the He- 
brew Scriptures, but stressed their inner meaning and 
somewhat modified them. In this respect the cautious 
legalism of the scribes was in marked contrast with Jesus' 
spontaneity and intuition, and "he taught like one having 
authority." Jesus always clothed his teachings in epi- 
grams and aphorisms, but he did not at first use "par- 
ables," which later became so characteristic of him. 
While parables do not necessarily relate real events, they 
are in harmony with life, and are calculated to attract 
attention and impress the memory. This method of 
teaching proved most successful. There are some thirty 
parables, and they hold up one central idea in various 
lights, and often occur in pairs or clusters. John records 
Jesus as using the allegory, which is a variant of the 
parable. Jesus also emphasized his teachings by the 
method of external acts. 



73 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



SUPPLEMENTARY READING 

Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapters III and IV. 

Hinsdale, B. A. Jesus as a Teacher. Chapters X-XVII, and 
XX. 

Kent, C. F. The Social Teachings of the Prophets and Jesus. 
Chapter XVII. 

Penniman, Josiah H. A Book about the English Bible, Chap- 
ter XII. 

Rall, H. F. New Testament History. Chapter IX. 

Rhees, Rush. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth. Part 11, Chap- 
ters III and IV. 

Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters HE and IV. 

TrpswoRD, H. M. Pedagogics of Jesus. Part II. 

Wayland, J. W. Christ as a Teacher. 



CHAPTER IV 

JESUS ' IDEA OF GOD 

The Concept of God as the Test of a Man's Char- 
acter. — The teaching of Jesus is essentially religious. His 
conception of God is typical of the entire content of his 
instruction. His simple but lofty vision of the Divine 
and of the "one increasing purpose which through the 
ages runs" is a leading feature in distinguishing the 
teaching of Jesus from that of all others. 

This conception reveals to us his own nature, for a 
person's character can be known from that of the God iTie character 

, « of a person or 

he worships. While Robert G. Ingersoll would hardly pation appears 

*■ o •' m their concep- 

be taken as an authority on theology, he cleverly hints '^°° °^ ^°^- 
at this truth in his parody upon the Scottish bard, — , 
"An honest God's the noblest work of man." Similarly, 
the ideals of any nation or race and the stage of its ad- 
vancement appear in its concept of God. Realizing that, 
more than half a millennium before the advent of Christ, 
the Greek philosopher, Xenophanes, satirically de- 
clared: 

" Men ever suppose that the gods have a body and voice 
and wear clothing like their own. . . . Hence the gods 
of the Ethiopians are swarthy and snub-nosed, and the 
gods of the Thracians are fair-haired and blue-eyed. . . . 
Similarly, Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all 
that is disreputable and blameworthy among men . . . 

73 



74 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

theft, adultery, deception, and other lawless deeds. . . . 
So if cattle and horses had hands with which to depict 
and produce works of art, they would describe the gods 
and make their bodies according to their own shape . . . 
horses like horses, and cattle like cattle." 

Jesus' Idea of God as Father. — Many centuries, then, 
must have elapsed before the human race, la its efforts 
to form an idea of the Divine, arose from animism, 
totemism, ancestor worship, and polytheism, through the 
intervening stage of henotheism, to the higher reaches 
of monotheism.^ Every step of this progress is well 
illustrated in the long history of the Hebrews, with their 
development from the tribal and anthropomorphic gods of 
pre-Mosaic days to the monistic, spiritual, and ubiqui- 
^'tous concepts of Jahweh formed by the prophets. And 
Jesus added ^t^o all the Hghcr attributes of the godhead — universality, 
co!tST°Jf G^ in2,jesty, wisdom, power — that had been gradually 
as Father. evolvcd iu this coursc of Jewish religious development, 

seem to have been assmned as part of his spiritual heri- 
tage by Jesus. In addition to these, however, he pro- 
duced the greatest transformation in the concept of the 
Deity by emphasizing his close relationship to men as 
their "father." The Old Testament had occasionally 
referred to Jahweh as "father," but this relation was 

1 Even to-day many well meaning and presumably intelligent 
people, who suppose themselves to be monotheists, are at best 
groping in the twilight of "henotheism." They hold to a species 
of modernized pantheon, recognizing good and bad angels, per- 
sonal devils, and pluralistic views of the Trinity, which imply 
a variety of demoted deities or demigods, and they have never 
fully emerged into the daylight of monotheism. 



JESUS' IDEA OF GOD 75 

generally expressed in the case of Israel alone (Ex. IV, 
22; Deut. XIV, i; Hos. XI, I'jJer. Ill, 4), or of its the- 
ocratic king (II Sam'l VII, 14; Ps. LXXXIX, 26), or 
important magistrates (Ps. LXXXII, 6). It usually im- 
plied a special mark of divine favor for a chosen people 
or persons. Jesus, on the other hand, seems never to 
have thought of this kinship as limited to any race or 
people, but he extended it to all mankind, and made it 
the central and supreme idea of his teaching. Without 
in the least weakening the awe and reverence that had 
come to be associated with Jahweh as Creator, Protector, 
and Ruler by this suggestion of fatherhood, the idea 
of God was shot through and through with new 
meaning, and each existing epithet or title of dignity 
for the Deity, such as "Most High" (ML V, 7), 
"Blessed" (ML XIV, 61), or Power" (ML XIV, 62), 
when he uttered it, took on an increased significance. 
Man's reverence for God and his dependence upon him 
existed no longer because he was the "servant" of God, 
but because he was his child. Jesus described God as 
"father," because this term seemed best to indicate the 
intimacy of relationship as companion or friend. 
And it can readily be seen how different is this con- The conception 

, "^ of fatherhood 

ception of fatherhood from the idea of God as a law- f^^m fh^t^o?^^ 
giver that was current at the time with the Pharisees lawgiver. 
and others. From Jesus' point of view, righteousness 
consisted not in obedience to a fixed set of laws or a 
definite ceremonial handed down from ancient days, but 
in loyalty to a beloved father and sympathetic compan- 
ionship with him. Men are the children of God, not 
because he is their Creator and Ruler, but because they 



76 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

are related to him by bonds of sympathy and dependence. 
Friendship with God, Jesus taught, is not obtained by 
the study of ritual or devotion to Temple worship, but 
by working to accomplish the divine purpose in the 
world and in the development of the race. 

The Attributes of Fatherhood. — What, then, are the 
moral attributes that Jesus associates with God as Father 
and that may be emulated by mankind as his sons? 
Foremost among the characteristics of a wise and loving 
father, constantly attributed to God by Jesus, is that 
Protecting care, of Drotccting carc. Any ouc who has kuown the afifcctiou- 

as the character- *-- o •' 

w °^ ^^^^^^' ^^^ protection of a father, or who has been stirred by the 
emotional promptings of paternal anxiety and vigilance, 
can imderstand the significance of this characterization. 
Matthew repeatedly cites the Father's solicitude as the 
sure ground for a belief in the divine Providence, and 
makes it a leading thought in the Sermon on the Mount. 
Continual begging from the Father is foolish, he holds, 
"for God, your Father, knows what you need before 
you ask him" (VI, 8). Likewise he says: "Do not then 
ask anxiously 'What can we get to eat? ' or 'What can 
we get to drink?' or 'What can we get to wear?' All 
these are the things for which the nations are seeking, 
and your heavenly Father knows that you need them 
all" (VI, 31 f.). Another admonition of Jesus to the 
same effect was given earlier in the chapter (VI, 25 f.), 
together with the familiar proof of God's thoughtful pro- 
vision for mankind: "Look at the wild birds . . . they 
neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into bams; and yet 
your heavenly Father feeds them. . . . Study the wild 
lilies and how they grow. They neither toil nor spin; 



JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 77 

yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his splendor was 
not robed like one of these." The comparison of God's 
evident care for the birds is even more effectively given 
later (X, 29 £f.) in the rhetorical question: "Are not two 
sparrows sold for a hahpenny? Yet not one of them 
will fall to the ground without your Father's knowledge. 
While, as for you, the very hairs of your head are all 
numbered. Do not, therefore, be afraid; you are of more 
value than many sparrows." Luke (XII, 22 ff.) has 
absorbed the Sayings of Jesus (see pp. 9 f .) in much the 
same form, although the illustrative birds are ravens, 
not sparrows, when they are declared neither to sow nor 
reap (XII, 24), and the selling price becomes slightly 
more of a bargain in an earlier passage, where sparrows 
are mentioned (XII, 6). 

But these evidences of God's paternal regard for our 
physical comfort are cited by Matthew simply as argu- 
ment for the preeminent value of spiritual sustenance, 
and as a caution against undue worry in material matters, 
which are of so much less importance, for he continues: 
"But first seek his Kingdom and the righteousness he 
requires, and then all these things shall be added for 
you. Therefore do not be anxious about to-morrow, for 
to-morrow will bring its own anxieties. Every day has 
trouble enough of its own" (VI, 33 ff.). This advice is 
not intended in any way to encourage heedlessness, 
lethargy, or fatalism. His Father's interest in his wel- but not intended 

\ , *^o encourage 

fare furnishes a reason to no man why he should fail {^^^^^-3^°^^ °^ 
to use the ordinary means of making a livelihood, or take 
the precautions necessary to insure his personal safety. 
That the Synoptists (see p. 9) did not hold this to be 



78 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

the meaning of Jesus, is shown by their account of his 
resistance to the temptation to rely upon his Father to 
make bread from the stones, or to save him from death, 
if he were to throw himself from the pinnacle of the 
Temple {ML IV, i ff.; ML I, 12 ff.; Lk. TV, i ff.)- 
Pity and for- Other patent attributes of the divine fatherhood are 

giveness, as char- ^ 

Father!^'^shouid^ P^^Y ^^^ forgiveucss. Thcse qualities follow almost as 
hfe chlSkS ^^ a corollary from the proposition of watchful care. Even 
the Old Testament {Ps. CIII, 13) distinguishes pity 
as an attribute of paternity in the expression: "Like 
as a father pitieth his children, so Jehovah pitieth 
them that fear him.'' And Jesus throughout the syn- 
optic gospels not only stresses these characteristics of 
the Father, but insists that they become an example 
for all his children. In Luke (VI, 36) it is taught: 
"Learn to be merciful — even as your Father is merci- 
ful." So the disciples are to pardon, as well as to be 
pardoned. The model prayer suggests the petition: 
"Forgive us our debts, as we have also forgiven our 
debtors" (ML VI, 12, cf. Lk. XI, 4). And as an ex- 
planation, Jesus adds: "For if ye forgive others their 
offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you also; 
but if you do not forgive others their offenses, not even 
your Father will forgive your offenses" (ML VT, 14 f.). 
Likewise Jesus insists upon forgiveness as antecedent 
to prayer: "Whenever you stand up to pray, forgive any 
grievance you have against any one, that your Father 
who is in Heaven also may forgive your offenses" (Mk. 
XI, 25). And he even declares specifically: "Therefore, 
when presenting your gift at the altar, if even there 
you remember that your brother has some grievance 



JESUS* IDEA OF GOD 79 

against you, leave your gift there, before the altar, go 
and be reconciled to your brother first, then come and 
present your gift'' {ML V, 23 f.). And he makes more 
explicit the principle underlying forgiveness by recount- 
ing Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant. Here 
(Mt. XVin, 23 ff.) the servant, who had been forgiven 
a large debt by his master, was most ruthless in his 
treatment of a fellow servant, who vainly besought 
patience in the case of a small amount, and when the 
master heard this, he "handed him over to the gaolers, 
until he should pay the whole of his debt. So also, will 
my heavenly Father do to you, imless each one of you 
forgives his brother from his heart." This, it will be 
recalled, was the parable used as an illustrative basis for 
Jesus' reply to Peter that he should forgive not "seven 
times, but seventy times seven" (ML XVIII, 21 f.). 

Sonship Attained by Adopting the Ethical Attri- 
butes of God. — But it may still be asked, did Jesus 
mean to imply that God was to be regarded as the 
"father" of all men? Was sonship to be extended to 
those who rejected him and his characteristics, or to 
be limited to the faithful? Clearly in the sense of cre- 
atorship God is the father of all men, and Jesus makes 
it equally apparent that they are all made in his spirit- 
ual image, and may, if they will, aspire to the moral 
attributes desired by him. By virtue of their very 
humanity, they possess an ineradicable likeness to God, 
and with the spark of the Divine within, they are ever 
capable of rising to the greatest nobility in the way of 
self-sacrifice and devotion. Sonship rests in their own 
efforts. All men possess God's characteristics poten- 



8o WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

Au men are tiallv and hc is at least ideally the Father of them all. 

potentially sons •' ^ "^ 

of God, Some realize the ideal very imperfectly, and some may 

even by their own will repudiate the filial relation, but 
the potentiality to some extent remains. Even the 
unfilial conduct of the Prodigal Son could not destroy 
the paternal relation and characteristics {Lk. XV, 21 
ff.)- And throughout the Sermon on the Mount it is 
evident that God's love and forgiveness are regarded 
as universal, and that the door is never closed to the 
wanderer. Here it is that Jesus maintains: "You, then, 
must become perfect {i.e., complete and not partial in 
love), as your heavenly Father is perfect" {Mt. V, 48). 

Yet it must be noted that, whUe God is represented 
as remaining the loving Father of humanity, ever ready 
to forgive, sonship is held to consist in becoming the 
moral counterpart of God, and they are more truly the 
sons of God who live the life of close fellowship with 
him. Through striving after noble ends and con- 
sciously strengthening their determination by prayer, 
such men may be said to develop a more intimate and 
responsive relationship to God. They become molded 
into a new character and obtain a more complete like- 
ness through personal contact. The mutual love and 
the similarity of nature thus engendered render the 
human analogy taken from fatherhood more appropri- 
ate in their case. They are, so to speak, more intensively 
the sons of God. 

Thus, while God's love and forgiveness for the entire 
race never cease, and Jesus maintains that the divine 

but there are t j 

SJ^tiiek^reaiiS- patcmity exists for all, there are widely differing degrees 
tion of sonship. ^f ^^^ ^0^^ and obcdieuce, and some men may be con- 



JESUS' IDEA OF GOD $1 

sidered more nearly members of a divine family. "To 
all who did receive him/' declares John (I, 12), "he 
gave power to become children of God." Hence Jesus, 
while never denying the universality of Fatherhood, 
reserves the dignity of sonship for those who have 
entered the kingdom, and have, in John's (III, 3) phrase- 
ology, been "reborn." So real and important is this 
metaphorical and spiritual kinship that at times he 
holds that it must even supersede that of one's own 
blood and family relations. He even bade one of the 
disciples who wished first to bury his father: "Follow 
me and leave the dead to bury their dead" (ML VIII, 
22; Mk. IX, 60). In his own case, too, when told that 
his mother and brethren were waiting to speak to him, 
Jesus declined to go, and, "stretching out his hand 
toward his disciples, he said: 'Here are my mother and 
my brothers '" (ML XH, 49 f. Cf. ML III, 34 ff.; LL 
VIII, 20 f.). 

This last passage seems also to indicate the main 
ground upon which Jesus held himself to be the son of 
God, — ethical like-mindedness. That view he proceeds Jmus is also the 

' ^ son of God, be- 

to substantiate by saying: "For any one who does the fienes^^J^^"^* 
will of my Father who is in heaven is my brother and 
sister and mother." That is to say, the test of sonship 
or membership in the divine family is found in the en- 
deavor to follow the requirements of God. And Jesus 
makes his own claim to sonship analogous with that of 
all faithful followers of God. This is quite a different a, very different 

, ^ view from that 

mterpretation of the meaning of "the Son of God" from ?^ ^^ ??<=¥. 

■*■ o Jewish Messiah. 

that rather official and material use of the term which 
had grown up in connection with some of the Jewish 



83 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

views of the expected Messiah. The sonship claimed 
by Jesus was, however, frequently understood in that 
miraculous and primitive sense. Illustrations of this 
are found in the challenge to show himself really the Son 
of God by turning stones into bread or by casting him- 
self from the pinnacle of the Temple {ML TV, 3 ff.; 
Lk. rV, 3 ff.)> and in the taunting request to demonstrate 
his sonship by coming down from the cross (ML XXVII, 
40 ff.; Lk. XXIII, 35 ff.). A similar conventional inter- 
pretation of the Messiahship as consisting simply in the 
performance of wonders is found in the well-known in- 
cident: "Now John had heard in prison what the Christ 
was doing, and he sent a message by his disciples and 
asked — ^ Are you The Coming One, or are we to look 
for some one else?'" (ML XI, 2). 

The Sonship of Jesus Himself. — But Jesus often 
spoke and acted about his sonship as if it were something 
imique, although he seems not to have adhered to any 
merely material view of this relation. Constantly dur- 
ing his ministry he indicated his certainty that he held a 
peculiar relationship to God, but this attitude is always 
susceptible of meaning moral kinship and sympathy. 
Spou^lswS According to Matthew (XI, 27), Jesus declared: "Every- 
"^'"1"^' thing has been committed to me by my Father; nor 

does any one fully know the Son, except the Father, 
or fully know the Father, except the Son, and those to 
whom the Son may choose to reveal Him." In John 
this ethical similarity is even more emphasized, for 
Jesus maintained: "He who has seen me has seen the 
Father. . . . Believe me when I say that I am in union 
with the Father and the Father with me" (XIV, 9 ff.). > 



JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 83 

Other allusions, while more subtle, are no less clear. Un- 
doubtedly Jesus himself is intended to be understood as 
the "beloved son" sent by the owner of the vineyard to 
represent him (M/. XXI, 37 ff.; Mk, XII, 6 Q.',Lk. XX, 
13 jBf.)' He is likewise indicated in the parable of the 
"king who made a marriage feast for his son,'^ and had 
such poor success in securing the guests {Mt. XXII, 2 ff.). 

Thus in every reference the sonship seems to be spirit- fjSrkud.— n^f 
ual. A personal identification of himself with Gk)d is p^^^^^^J 
probably not impHed even in John's description of the 
intimacy of the relation by figurative expressions drawn 
from the physical side of human life, such as "the Only 
Son sent from the Father" (I, 14 and 18. Cf. Ill, 16 and 
18). In his interpretation of sonship Jesus transcends 
the current material and restricted view. He never makes 
this his prime idea, but clearly indicates that he is the 
son of God because he reveals the Father in his own life, 
and because, in his new interpretation of the ideals of Gk)d 
and in the salvation of men from their lower selves, he 
stands alone. 

While the sonship of Jesus is analogous to that of faith- 
ful men everywhere, it is most certainly unique. This 
was the sure, though humble, conviction of Jesus. While 
he spoke as if he were the son of God in the same sense 
that all true believers were his children, by sympathetic n^a^'b^Sl 
kinship, he never considered the sonship of the disciples '''^^ humility. 
on a par with his own. In his conversations with them 
he regularly refers to "your Father" or to "my Father," 
but never to "our Father." This possessive pronoun is 
used, of course, in his model prayer, but the petition is 
there suggested to the disciples for their own use. Thk 



84 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

distinctive recognition of Jesus as the son of God par ex- 
cellence is confirmed in such passages as the baptism of 
Jesus, where the voice from the heavens declared: ''This 
is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I delight" {Mt. Ill, 17. 
Cf. Mk. I, 11; Lk. Ill, 22), or in the descriptions of the 
transfiguration, where a similar phenomenon is recorded 
(ML XVII, 5; Lk. IX, 35). Hence Jesus declared that 
all men might, by faith and deeds, become the children 
of God (Jn. I, 12), but that he actually was the son 
of God. He taught the imiversal fatherhood of God 
through moral kinship, but for that very reason the 
closeness of the relation was in his own case absolutely 
unique. 

Jesus* Idea of God as King. — Such was the new idea 
of God as Father taught by Jesus. One other title is also 
implied of God by the Great Teacher and that is "king." 
jH"s\ha't°Gld'is '^^^ ^^"^ itself is seldom used, but Jesus constantly 
" king," refers to ' ' the Kingdom of God, ' ' and thereby might seem 

to indicate a group of people imder the sovereignty of a 
Supreme Being. This characterization of God appears 
at the beginning of Jesus' teaching and remains a prime 
concept throughout. According to Mark (I, 14), as soon 
as Jesus started his work in Galilee, he declared: "The 
time has come, and the Kingdom of God is at hand." 
The phrase recurs throughout the gospel of Mark and it is 
used at every turn in Luke. Matthew usually employs 
an alternative expression, "the Kingdom of Heaven," 
to indicate the same idea. But the synonymous form is 
probably used by this ecclesiastical (see p. 16) evangelist, 
simply to avoid, in keeping with the Jewish custom, the 
direct use of the name of the Deity, wherever possible. 



JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 85 

And even in Matthew "the Kingdom of God'' occurs 
three times (XII, 28; XXI, 31 and 43). 

This idea of kingship, however, when used by Jesus, ^g^^e^nj^^^^i^^'^t^J 
may be regarded as simply another side to fatherhood. |id?%V'^{a2i?l 
His use of the term seems to emphasize the authority of ^°°^' 
the Father, and to recognize more expressly the necessity 
for living in accordance with his truth and law, but the 
"Kingdom" is, after all, simply the idea of a family 
expanded and made more comprehensive. The king is 
the father and the subjects are brothers. In fact, the 
filial relation to the Father and citizenship in the King- 
dom are sometimes used interchangeably. "Blessed {i.e. 
happy) are the peacemakers," says Jesus in Matthew 
(V, 9), "for they shall be called the Sons of God," whereas 
he holds that "the poor in spirit" (V, 3) and "those who 
have been persecuted in the cause of righteousness" 
(V, 10) should be happy, "for theirs is the Kingdom of 
Heaven." So the first petition in the model prayer reads: 
"Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name," 
while the second is "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" 
{ML VI, 9 f. Cf. Lk. XI, 2). Similarly, Jesus insists upon 
an outstanding characteristic of childhood, — implicit 
trust in the Father, as the only means of entering the 
Kingdom {Mt. XVIII, 3; Mk. X, 15). In many other 
ways the terms of "father" and "king" are equated, 
and the two ideals blend throughout the synoptic gospels. 
Possibly citizenship in the heavenly polity may be con- 
sidered to stress the social side of the situation, just as 
membership in the divine family makes reference to the 
individual. Jesus was striving not merely for love and 
loyalty to a divine Father, but for a social order which 



86 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

should realize the divine purpose. Through the family 
of faithful sons were to be trained efficient spiritual 
citizens, and entrance into a transformed society was to 
be the goal and reward of the individual's efforts. The 
concept of devoted family relations extended to society 
at large was the perfected social ideal of Jesus. 

The Ideal of a Material Kingdom Enlarged. — Much 
more than in the case of the concept of fatherhood (see 
p. 74), the "king" idea had been somewhat developed 
in the Old Testament. Jesus in a way but gave a new 
meaning or "fulfillment" (see p. 63) to a well-established 
Jewish tradition. The Hebrews always regarded their 
state as a theocracy — a monarchy ruled by Jahweh. 
Their kings and magistrates were held to be his vice- 
gerents upon earth, even to the extent, as we have seen 
(p. 75), of calling them "the sons of God." During the 
various periods of domination and oppression that Judaea 
had suffered under Babylon, Persia, Alexander, the 
Ptolemies, Syria, and Rome, this idea was strengthened 
d^ine'^?ing°dom ^^^ elaborated. The conception of a divine kingdom 
b^'^thfttaiT'ol bad, by the time of Jesus, developed into a belief in the 
^^^' establishment of a great empire, which was destined to 

cast off the foreign yoke and dominate the world. This 
enlarged idea is often portrayed, especially in the apoc- 
alyptic literature of the Old Testament, as, for example, 
the passage from Daniel (II, 44) : " And in the days of 
those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom 
which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty 
thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in 
pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand 
forever." This Messianic view of the Kingdom, as we 



JESUS' IDEA OF GOD 87 

shall see (pp. 142 f.), became more pronounced in Enoch, 
Baruch, and various other recently discovered apoca- 
lyptic books. There was a general belief that a Messiah 
would suddenly arise amid signs and wonders. He would 
quickly conquer the world and establish the divine 
empire, with Jerusalem as its capital. 

This ideal of a Messianic kingdom was adapted by and JpirftuauSd 
Jesus, and given a wider and more spiritual significance. *'• 
His conception of the Kingdom of God crystallized all 
the inherited loyalty and devotion of the Jewish race, but 
he no longer limited the Kingdom to Judaea. He extended 
the possibility of citizenship therein to all mankind, and 
made the test for entrance not race, wealth, power, or 
social standing, but the possession of certain virtues and 
moral qualities. While Jesus never defines this spiritual 
Kingdom, in the varied language of the Beatitudes 
{ML V, 3-1 1) he catalogues those whose characteristics 
will enable them to attain membership in it; to wit, the 
humble, penitent, gentle, virtuous, compassionate, pure- 
minded, peacemakers, and martyrs. Elsewhere (ML 
XVIII, 3 ff.; Mk. X, 15) he cites submissiveness and 
childlike trust as qualities for citizenship in the Kingdom. 
Again {ML XX, 21 ff.) he declares service to be the real 
test for good standing there. According to John's mys- 
tical statement (III, 3), Jesus maintained that the 
achievement of these qualities entails a new birth. In 
other words, allowing for the pedagogical repetition in 
the Beatitudes, the Great Teacher holds that citizenship 
in the Kingdom of God requires that one develop humil- 
ity, purity, and service as the texture of his character. 

Such a spiritual society was somewhat different from 



88 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

the earthly kingdom that many of the Jewish apocalyptic 
writers had described. It was not material and objective, 
with a fixed organization and administrarion, but was 
spiritual and a product of congenial intellects, emotions, 
and wills. Like Boston, as the wag has expressed it, 
it was not a place, but a state of mind. The great human- 
ist, Erasmus, declared, when Italy was the center of 
culture: "To me any one who is truly learned is an 
Italian, even if born among savages." So anyone who 
shared the thoughts and purposes of God in an attitude 
of love and loyalty to him was to become a citizen of his 
Kingdom, wherever his birthplace might have been. In 
a union of this sort distance was no obstacle, and the 
members might be widely separated. " For where two 
or three have come together in my Name, I am present 
with them" {ML XVIII, 20). Since the relationship is a 
spiritual one, it is possible for all to attain it, and it could 
well be declared that "many will come from East and 
West, and take their places beside Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven" {ML VIII, 11). 
Development of the Kingdom. — This spiritual king- 
Kfngdl?m^was*tJ ^°"^' Jcsus sccms to have held, was destined constantly 
develop and ^q grow and expand in power and repute. Hence in 
Matthew (XIII, 31 ff.) it is likened to the mustard seed 
developing into a large plant, or to the yeast spreading 
in the meal, while Mark (IV, 26 ff.) reports the metaphor 
of a seed of growing grain, which becomes "first the 
blade, then the ear, and then the full grain in the ear." 
This process of realizing the divine ideals, too, would 
seem to answer the question that has sometimes been 
raised as to whether Jesus referred, by the "Kingdom 



expanc 



as 
in thi 
future. 



JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 89 

of God" and the *' Kingdom of Heaven," to a present 
reality or to a future state of blessedness. As the chapter 
on The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Future (VII) 
will indicate in detail, apparently he meant both. While 
the ideals formulated could only be approximated, he 
regarded them as somewhat attainable upon earth and 
did not look forward to a heavenly Kingdom only. Said 
Jesus, when questioned by the Pharisees : ^ ' The Kingdom S iJ^b^egin'^^w 
of God does not come in a way that admits of observa- wS°as^£^the 
tion, nor will people say 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it 
is ! ' ; for the Kingdom of God is in your midst" (Lk. XVII, 
21). The earthly Kingdom was to be but anticipatory 
of the heavenly. Hence it is not merely in the future 
that men are to become brothers, but in the present as 
well. ''You have only one Teacher," Jesus said, "and 
you yourselves are all brothers" (ML XXIII, 8). The 
social order in which the relation of men to God is that of 
sons and to each other of neighbors and brothers is to 
be begun here and now {Lk. X, 25-37). The hopes of 
the Jewish masses for a present kingdom and the es- 
chatological vision of the later Jewish writers of a future 
divine Israelitish state, with a Messiah at the head as 
God's vicegerent, and all other peoples as subjects, both 
entered into the new interpretation of Jesus. He took 
these expectations of a divinely reconstituted society, 
and purified the ideas of both present and future con- 
tained in them. He also harmonized and imiversalized 
them in his conception of a spiritual kingdom progres- 
sively achieved. 

Difficulties in Comprehending Jesus' Idea of the King- 
dom. — But the concept of a kingdom of this sort — 



of the timM, 



90 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

spiritual, universal, widely separated, and gradual — was 
Sea coSKot difficult for the people of the times to grasp. While it 
bj the"SSS was derived from a well-established hope and expectation, 
the adaptation was so radical as to prove confusing and 
misleading to those looking for a visible and material 
kingdom. Jesus himself soon recognized that this ex- 
treme departure from the original idea of a political 
kingdom or theocratic state was so great that one could 
not without disaster, as he expressed it, sew the new 
fabric upon the old garment or put the new wine into 
the old containers {Mk. II, 21 f.). So well-rooted and 
persistent, however, was the idea of an earthly empire 
that even Jesus found the temptation to become a new 
Caesar forced upon him. But he steadfastly refused to 
attempt any miraculous exhibition of his imperial vice- 
gerency by turning stones into bread or hurling himself 
from the top of a great building, saying in the one case: 
"Scripture says — 'It is not on bread alone that man 
is to live ' " {Lk. IV, 4), and in the other: " It is said — 
'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God' " {Lk. IV, 12). 
And when, thirdly, he was tempted to assume dominion 
over "all the kingdoms of the world," he recalled the 
words: "Scripture says — *Thou shalt do homage to the 
Lord thy God, and worship him only'" {Lk. IV, 8). 
He often had to decline to perform any wonders as a 
sign of his Messiahship, and declared to the expectant 
multitude on one occasion: "This generation is asking 
a sign, but no sign shall be given to it, except the sign 
of Jonah ... for they repented at Jonah's proclama- 
tion; and here is more than a Jonah" {Lk. XI, 30 ff.). 
And, after the wonderful feeding of the multitude, it is 



JESUS' IDEA OP GOD 9I 

related: "When the people saw the signs which Jesus 
gave, they said: "This is certainly 'the Prophet who was 
to come' into the world. But Jesus, having discovered 
that they were intending to come and carry him off to 
make him king, retired again up the hill quite alone" 
{Jn. VI, 14 f.). Repeatedly those who witnessed his 
remarkable works and teaching, mindful of the tradi- 
tional Kingdom of God and the promised Messiah or 
vicegerent, endeavored without success to drag him into 
politics and seat him upon a visible throne. On the 
other hand, because he maintained, when challenged, 
that he was a king, his hearers, who failed to take this 
in the spiritual sense, had him put to death {Lk. XXIII, 
2 ff.). They were never able to understand his declara- 
tion: "My kingly power is not due to this world" {Jn. 
XVIII, 36). 

The disciples of Jesus themselves, with all the oppor- J^j^^ ^^ ^" 
tunities they had to listen to his teachings, failed to 
appreciate his mission. They seemed to have been 
frankly disappointed wheh, as Gk)d's representative, he 
claimed no earthly throne. We read {ML XVIII, i ff.) 
how they came to the Master and naively asked: "Who 
is really the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? " When 
in answer Jesus called a little child to him, and then said: 
"Any one who will hiunble himself like this child, that 
man shall be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven," 
they must have been perplexed and probably grieved by 
the interpretation. When later the mother ^ of James 
and John came with her sons and actually went so far 

»In Mark (X, 35 ff.) the two disciples themselves are repre- 
Bcnted as preferring the request. 



92 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

as to make the request: "I want you to say that in your 
Kingdom these two sons of mine may sit, one on your 
right, and the other on your left" {ML XX, 21 ff.), 
Jesus replied: ''You shall indeed drink my cup, but as 
to a seat at my right and at my left — that is not mine 
to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared 
by my Father." And to the other ten disciples, who, 
upon hearing the request, ''were very indignant about 
the two brothers," he explained: "Whosoever would be 
great among you shall be your minister; and whoever 
wants to become great among you must be your servant; 
just as the Son of Man came, not to be served, but to 
serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." 

But still the spiritual Kingdom seems to have re- 
mained but indifferently comprehended by these men 
who were nearest to Jesus. Upon his triumphal entry 
into Jerusalem, just before the crucifixion, the disciples 
were probably among those who joined in the shout: 
"Blessed is the coming Kingdom of our father David!" 
(Mk. XI, 10). At any rate it is recorded (Acts I, 6) 
that after the resurrection they even yet failed to get 
the purport of his interpretation of the Kingdom of God 
and inquired impatiently: "Master, is this the time 
when you intend to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel? " 

Jesus* Idea of God a " Fulfillment." — Thus the de- 
scription of God's character, both as "father" and as 
"king," was adapted by Jesus from Jewish traditions, 
but, as compared with many of these, so humanized and 
spiritualized as to become largely original with him. 
While it was difl&cult for the people of the times, and 
even his professed followers, fully to comprehend the 



JESUS' IDEA OF GOD 93 

sense in which he used these terms, they must have 

felt that it was a genuine "fulfillment" and became a Yet aii must 

have realized 

bond between the new and the old. The complete the "fumu- 

. ment. 

significance and more extensive acceptance have been 
gradually growing with the progress of time. An ap- 
preciation of the Father in Heaven and the furtherance 
of his Kingdom have been increasing ever since the 
prayer was offered as a model. 

Summary. — Jesus' idea of God reveals his own nature. 
To the wisdom, majesty, and power conceived by the 
Jewish traditions, he added the idea of fatherhood, with 
the attributes of protecting care, pity, and forgiveness. 
Men become the children of God in so far as they adopt 
these qualities, and the sonship of Jesus, while unique, 
is founded upon the revelation of God in bis own life. 
The idea of kingship was also attributed to God by 
Jesus, but this seems simply to expand the idea of a 
divine family and to stress its social side. This con- 
ception also had been developed in Hebrew history, but 
Jesus represented it as a spiritual, rather than a material, 
kingdom, and made humility, purity, and service the 
test of membership. The realization of these ideals was 
to be gradual, and the Kingdom of God was a present 
reality, as well as a future state. The people of the 
times, and even the disciples, found it difficult to 
grasp this departure from the concept of a political 
kingdom. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING 

BoswoRTH, E. I. Studies in the Teaching of Jesus. Part I. 
Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapter V. 



94 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

HiLLis, N. D. The Influence of Christ in Modern Life. Chap- 
ters VII and VIII. 

Mathews, Shailer. Message of Jesus to Modern Life. Study I. 

Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Studies II, 
III, and VI. 

MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. Chapter III. 

Rall, H. F. New Testament History. Chapters X-XV. 

Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. Chapters I and 11. 

Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters I, V, and VI. 






CHAPTER V 

JESUS' IDEA OF MAN 

The Brotherhood of Man and the Divine Commun- 
ity. — After the elaboration of Jesus' conception of God in 
the last chapter, further comment regarding his view of 
man might seem to be superfluous. The one idea is so 
obviously the correlate of the other. And yet it may 
afford a more comprehensive view and bring out certain 
implications, to state the attitude of Jesus from the 
obverse side. All men are potentially the sons of God, Jf'God^*are'°°' 
but to claim their birthright they should strive after Sf'' '" """^ 
the divine characteristics or attributes required of them.i 
But, through his deep-lying social instincts, man has a 
capacity and desire for a union with his fellows, as well 
as a purely individualistic side. If it is true that all may 
become the children of God, it follows that they may be 
brothers to each other. If they once become fully con- 
scious of their common sonship, they will naturally be 
drawn into relations of sympathy and brotherly love. 
So important does Jesus deem this fraternal feeling and 
action to be that he holds that any obstruction to its 
origin and function should be ruthlessly removed, even 
if the punctuality of a formal religious observance is 
thereby violated. That is the meaning of the well-known 
passage: 

"Therefore, when presenting your gift at the altar, if 

95 



96 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



On the social 
side, a divine 
community, or 
" Kingdom of 
God," will be 
established. 



even there you remember that your brother has some 
grievance against you, leave yoiir gift there, before the 
altar, go and be reconciled to your brother first, then come 
and present your gift'' {ML V, 23 f.). 

A sense of this common filial relationship and frater- 
nity, Jesus clearly held, should animate a man's dealings 
even with his adversaries and enemies. While one could 
hardly be expected to have the actual affection for them 
that seems to have been felt for his opponents by the Mas- 
ter, he can always treat them as if they were his brothers. 
The characteristics of mankind that make a union with 
the divine purpose necessary and normal, should perforce 
bring one into unified relations with all his fellows. The 
consummation of activity of this sort must be the gradual 
establishment of a social order in which fraternity will 
characterize all phases of social life. This divine society 
Jesus describes metaphorically in a variety of ways, such 
as the organic growth of a vine and its branches (Jn. XV, 
I f.), or the activities of a family community dweUing in 
the Father's place of abode (Jn, XIV, 2 f.). And the 
members of this group are spoken of as "salt," the all- 
important condiment for the religious food of the world 
{ML V, 13), and are viewed as companions and sympa- 
thetic yoke fellows {Mt. XI, 28 ff.)- ^^t the ideal society 
is most frequently indicated by the "Kingdom of God," 
which both is and is to come, for the members are con- 
stantly increasing and the Kingdom itself expanding its 
vision. 

Hence, just as Jesus holds that the individual man is 
ideally God's son and may make the relation real by seek- 
ing to attain certain ethical qualities, on the social side 



JESUS' IDEA OF MAN 97 

man becomes a member of God's Kingdom when he rec- 
ognizes these characteristics as the laws of his life. The 
point of view underlying both these descriptions of man's 
nature constitutes the peculiarity and uniqueness of the 
Master's teaching on the subject. Instead of making 
morals the basis of religion, religious experience is the 
real ground of morality. Ethical conduct is sought SSf 'tJ^^basis 
to attain to sonship, and right social relations are nee- reifion.'^ '^ '"^ 
essary to enter the Kingdom or community of God. And 
when one has come under the influence and direction of 
these ideals, he does not lose his real self, but for the first 
time finds it. He has entered into his natural inheritance 
and become the son of God and a member of the divine 
society. 

The Infinite Worth of a Human Soul. — The possi- 
bility of securing such a relationship explains the repeated 
insistence of Jesus upon the infinite worth of every human 
soul and upon the nature and unwisdom of sin. The de- J^^^^^^^^^ 
velopment of one's soul into God's likeness and the secur- '^ paramount, 
ing of sonship cannot be accounted secondary to any 
other object in life, whereas a sinful life means discard- 
ing one's likeness and severing the filial relation, and con- 
stitutes the most suicidal folly. *'What good is it," 
asks Jesus rhetorically, "to a man to gain the whole 
world, and forfeit his life (or soul)? For what could a 
man give that is of equal value with his life? " (Mk. VIII, 
36 f. Cf. ML XVI, 26 and Lk. IX, 25). Hence the crim- 
inal folly of the rich man of the parable, who said to his 
soul: "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many 
years, take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But 
God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy 



98 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast pre- 
pared, where shall they be? So is he that layeth up 
treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God" ^ {Lk. 
XII, 19 £[.)• This, too, is the significance of the advice: 
"Do not be anxious about your life here — what you can 
get to eat or drink; nor yet about your body — what you 
can get to wear. Is not life more than food, and the body 
than its clothing?" {ML VI, 25). And, similarly, it is 
held to be better to lose one's hand, foot, or eye than to 
lose one's soul or possibility of likeness to God and fel- 
lowship with him {Mk. IX, 43 ff.). 

It was because of his feeling for the sanctity and possi- 
bilities of each human soul that Jesus treated every one 
he met with consideration and dignity. He was uniformly 
kind in all his dealings, whether with the learned Pharisee, 
the supercilious high priest, the humble peasant, the de- 
spised publican, or the outcast woman. However confi- 
dent or humble, every human being was to him a real per- 
son, with a soul precious beyond measure. This accounts 
for the seeming hyperbole: " If any one puts a snare in the 
way of one of these lowly ones who beheve in me, it would 
be far better for him if he had been thrown into the sea 
with a great millstone roimd his neck" {Mk. IX, 42). 
With his clear insight, he realized that whatever stands in 
or°rdfei?us '^^ the way of a man's spiritual life, even though it be a well- 
established religious tradition, such as the observance of 
the Sabbath, must give way {Mt. XH, 10 ff.). And all 
these evidences of the Master's high valuation of the 
human soul harmonize well with his description of the 

iThe King James Version is used here, since it brings out 
more clearly the chief thought of the paragraph. 



traditions. 



JESUS' IDEA OP MAN 99 

Father's watchful care and solicitude, previously noted 
(p. 76). To him who regards even the fall of a sparrow, 
man must seem of infinite importance. 

Abhorrence for Sin. — This attitude fully accords with 
the abhorrence that Jesus had for sin, and his desire to do 
everything possible to save men from it. To him sin 
meant the ruin of a man's real self, sacrificing his sonship sm fa^uMaturai 
to God, and excluding himself from the divine community. 
To dress the idea of Jesus in more modem garb, sin 
seemed an unnatural and abnormal state for man. It 
meant a failure to realize his higher life. It implied liv- 
ing with his most primitive and outworn instincts, and 
not developing the life of the spirit. It was the life of 
the lower animals, without aim or guidance, and largely 
negated all the social instincts and impulses. It was anti- 
social conduct, a disregard for or an invasion of the 
rights of one's fellows. It was a repudiation of the 
ideas of duty, law, and service, and an arrested de- 
velopment of higher living. It is, therefore, a perversion, 
and a rejection of man's real self. A human race over- 
come by sin would, accordingly, seem a contradiction in 
terms, since it implies the loss or want of development of 
the parts of man's original nature that constitute him man 
as distinguished from the brutes. Habitual sinning means 
the loss of spiritual vision, — a distortion of sight lead- 
ing ultimately to an inability to see. "The lamp of the 
body, " said Jesus, "is the eye. If your eye is unclouded, 
your whole body will be lit up; but, if your eye is dis- 
eased, your whole body will be darkened. And if the 
inner light is darkness, how intense must that darkness 
be!" {ML VI, 22 f.; Lk. XI, 34 ff.). 



lOO WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

This will explain why Jesus so frequently described 
asl statfwilSe ^^ ^^ ^ ^tatc whcrc somethiug has been lost, spoiled, or 
^mething is separated, and has failed to meet the need for which it 
was intended. The situation of sinful humanity is lik- 
ened to that of a lost sheep {Lk. XV, 3 ff.); a lost coin 
{Lk. XV, 8 ff.), a lost son {Lh XV, 11 ff.), lost health 
{Mk. II, 17), spoiled fruit {ML VII, 17), a dead limb 
{Jn. XV, 6), decayed bodies {Mt. XXIII, 28), exclusion 
from the Hght {ML XXII, 13), loss of money {ML XXV, 
28), and separation from happiness {ML XXV, 41). 
The apostle Paul renders more explicit this loss of son- 
ship and rejection of the higher life impKed in the teach- 
ing of Jesus. The way in which sin cuts man adrift from 
God is indicated by him in a number of vivid phrases. 
He declares that sin reduces men to a condition where 
they are "cut off from the life of God" {Eph. IV, 18. Cf. 
CoL I, 21), are "in the world without God" {Eph II, 12), 
and are "enemies of God" {Rom. V, 10; CoL I, 21), and 
he even goes so far as repeatedly to declare of sinful men 
that "God abandoned them" {Rom. I, 24, 26, 28). 

Sin Not Technical and External. — With Jesus and his 
followers, then, sin was not, as it was in large measure 
with the religious authorities of his day, technical and ex- 
S 'outwar? Hff tcmal. It was not a matter of outward life nor of ritual 
and ceremonial, ^^^ ccremomal. It fouud its basis in perverseness of dis- 
position and a low set of ideas and emotions, rather than 
in eating pork or a failure to partake of unleaven bread. 
While Jesus did not despise these observances, he held 
them subordinate to the spirit in which they were per- 
formed. "There is nothing external to a man," he de- 
clared {Mk. VII, 15), "which by going into him can 'de- 



JEStrs' IDEA OF MAN lOI 

file' him; but the things that come out of a man are the 
things that defile him." Even words and acts are but 
the expression of the inner life of principles and motives, 
and at best can be regarded only as an index and are not 
of value in themselves. ''From within, out of the hearts but proceeds 

from within; 

of men," said Jesus, "there come evil thoughts — un- 
chastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, 
deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, haughtiness, folly" 
{Mk. VII, 21 f.; ML XV, 19). Thus Jesus renders more 
specific both the words of the elder sage: "As a man 
thinketh in his heart, so is he" {Prov. XXIII, 37), and 
the principles of the modem psychologist to the effect 
that "all ideas are motor" and "there can be no im- 
pression without expression." 

The standard, then, is one's inner attitude and dispo- 
sition, rather than some outward observance, and the 
types of people that are warned in various passages by 
Jesus that they are in danger of losing their birthright all 
fall under this test. In the first place, he tells us in the 
Sermon on the Mount that it is not merely overt mur- 
derers or adulterers that are to be punished, but rather ^^^^ SEf^n°^ 
those who indulge in anger or unclean thinking {ML V, S attltuSr^ 
21 ff.). Jesus likewise predicts a dire fate to the scribes 
and Pharisees, who "pay tithes on mint, fennel, and 
caraway seed, and have neglected the weightier matters 
of the Law — justice, mercy, and good faith" {ML XXIII, 
23). Again, he declares that at the Last Judgment will 
be condemned those who did not reveal instinctive pity 
for the poor, hungry, and unfortunate {ML XXV, 42 ff.). 
Fourthly, Jesus excludes from the kingdom those who 
have failed to arrive at definite convictions, whether they 



are condemned. 



I02 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

look back after putting their hand to the plow {Lk. IX, 
62), or refuse to utilize their opportunities at all {Mt. 
XXV, 24). While, most emphatically of all, he insists 
that "whoever slanders the Holy Spirit remains unfor- 
given to the end; he has to answer for an enduring sin" 
{Mk. m, 29). 
Jesus felt that The Optimism of Jesus. — But the attitude of Jesus 
a ^sbne'J^aT^ toward thosc who were "lost" is by no means identical 
with that of many a theologian of the past generation. 
He did not use the word at all in the same sense. Their 
condition was not irreparable. Those who were "lost" 
might, he held, be found. This happened in the case 
with the coin, the sheep, and the prodigal of his parables. 
Much as Jesus abhorred sin, he always discriminated in 
his action between the sinner and his sin, and he never 
allowed himseK to become pessimistic in his views of the 
former. Realizing that a sin does not consist primarily 
in the outward act, which is but a motor accompaniment 
of wrong ideals and disposition, he felt that sinners could 
be made over through the reception of new ideals and 
interests and a redirection of their lives. He never felt, 
in consequence, that the state of a sinner was so desperate 
as to lead to his abandonment as hopelessly lost. His 
great optimism in this respect and his continued efforts to 
reconstruct the life of those who had strayed led to his 
being often accused of leniency and even toleration of 
sin. He was generally known as "a friend of- taxgather- 
ers and outcasts" {Mt. XI, 19). 

It was likewise this recognition of inner motives as the 
foundation of sin and of the possibility of substituting 
better ideals in all men that kept Jesus from treating men 



JESUS' IDEA OF MAN 103 

as sharply divided into two hard-and-fast classes, — those 
who sinned and were hopelessly bad, and those who did be'^divfdld bto^ 
not and were ever righteous. While he himself used these "sFnnere"Tnd~ 
terms — ''sinners" (or "outcasts") and "righteous"— ""g^t«°"«'" 
occasionally, he did so only in recognition of the current 
practice, and repeatedly showed that the "unco' good'* 
were often the greater sinners of the two. The official 
"sinners," both in his parables and in the incidents of 
his life, seemed more ready to respond to new ideals than 
the righteous. This was the situation with the two sons, 
one of whom said: "I will not go, but afterwards he 
was sorry and went," while the other said, "Yes, sir, 
but did not go" (ML XXI, 29 f.). A more graphic in- 
stance is found in the story of the self-satisfied Pharisee, 
and the publican, who "kept striking his breast and say- 
ing, '0 God, have mercy on me, a sinner' " (Lk. XVIII, 
10 ff.). Because, too, of his belief that an effective appeal 
might be made to "sinners," Jesus succeeded in trans- 
forming a grasping publican named Zaccheus into a pub- 
lic benefactor and in rendering the prostitute Magdalene 
a virtuous disciple. He was not, however, friendly to 
publicans and sinners simply because they were outcasts, 
but because he wished to aid the sinning whenever they 
were conscious of their need. Nor was he prejudiced 
against the scribes and Pharisees as such, but was glad to 
befriend them when they abandoned their complacency 
and sought his aid. He even declared of one scribe that 
he was "not far from the Kingdom of Gk)d" {ML XII, 

34). 

Jesus, then, recognized that men are swayed by mixed 
motives, and that there is good and bad in each of them. 



never occurs. 



104 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

by'mked mT"^ Theic is nothuig in any of his teachings to warrant the 
Sravi?y""'°'^^ austcie doctrinc of "total depravity," which used to be 
preached. He nowhere justified the idea, that, because 
of the original sin of our first parents, men are by nature 
altogether inclined toward evil. Jesus recognized the 
evil tendencies in all, but saw in each the spark of the 
Divine, and believed that it might be fanned into activ- 
ity. He saw the ignorance, weakness, and wickedness 
with which mankind is surrounded, — the wrongs in- 
flicted by the oppressor, the pride of the overweening, the 
insolence of the official, and he did not hesitate Lo rebuke 
wrongdoing on the part of any one, but he never de- 
spaired. He showed men constantly that they were 
being estranged from God, and that he had come to call 
them back to their better selves. Thus the new inter- 
pretation of man offered by Jesus gives point to the words 
of the psalmist: "What is man, that thou art mindful 
of him? And the son of man that thou visitest him? 
For thou hast made him but little lower than God" ^ {Ps, 
VIII, 4 f.). Jesus' idea of man is indeed correlative with 
his concept of God, and enables man to claim his sonship 
by aspiring to the higher life. 

Summary. — The common sonship to God, which may 
be secured by all men, constitutes them brothers and 
fellow members of the divine community. Jesus bases 
morals upon religion, rather than the reverse. With him 
the development of the human soul into God's likeness 
cannot be secondary to any other object, and he abhors 
sin as a rejection of a man's real self. Sin Jesus felt to be 

1 The revised version can easily be seen to be a great improve- 
ment over the old translation, "little lower than the angels." 



JESUS' IDEA or MAN I05 

based upon the inner life, rather than to be something 
external and technical, and the types of people he holds 
to be condemned are judged by this internal test. Hence 
he discriminated between the sinner and his sin, and was 
exceedingly optimistic about being able to redirect the 
lives even of great sinners. Jesus did not divide men into 
two fixed classes as "sinners" and "righteous," but 
believed that men were swayed by mixed motives, and 
that "total depravity" never existed. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING 

BoswoRTH, E. I. Studies in the Teaching of Jesus. Part III. 
Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapter VI. 
Mathews, Shatler. Message of Jesus. Study II. 
Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Study VI. 
Mathews, S. Social Teaching of Jesus. Chapter II. 
Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. Chapters XIII and XIV. 
Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters VIII and IX. 



CHAPTER VI 

JESUS' CONCEPTION OF THE IDEALS AND RECONSTRUC- 
TION OF LIFE 

Ethical Theories and Their Ideals. — When we 
spoke of Jesus' attitude toward sin in the last chapter, 
we made our entrance into the field of ethics. Sin con- 
stitutes the negative side of Christian virtue or the 
failure to carry into effect the life ideals presented by 
Jesus. Ethical inquiry has always been interested in 
the nature of the r;ood and in setting up some ''supreme 
good" as a goal or ideal for one's efforts. This summum 
bonum, as it is commonly called, has been conceived 
of in a variety of ways and given a diversity of mean- 
fS £sTtl°^ ^^S^ corresponding to the theories of the various schools 
"chief good." Qf ethics regarding the nature and destiny of man as 
a rational being and his fundamental relations to the 
Supreme Being. To the "hedonist," for example, 
pleasurable feeling is the ultimate standard of moral 
value, whereas ''self-realizationists" find their moral 
ideal in perfection of character or the harmonious de- 
velopment of personal capacities. Naturally the goal 
of self-realization is less definite and affords a greater 
variety of theories than hedonism. The perfection to 
be attained or the self to be realized can be decided 
upon only after philosophical inquiry. 

Jesus* Ideals. — We cannot imagine Jesus plunging 
into the sea of abstract metaphysics or consciously 

io6 



JESUS' CONCEPTION OF LIFE'S IDEALS I07 

setting up a scientij&c goal for conduct. But it may IJ^J'l^^^^gg 
be said, without straining the facts or committing the ^eiiiSdon^^^' 
''historical fallacy," that he stated a simple and clear- 
cut summum honum of his own, and while this can 
hardly be identified with that of the self-realizationists, 
it is not out of keeping with their general position. As 
in the case of most ethical theories, the ideal of Jesus 
harmonizes with his conception of man and of man's 
relation to God. To one teaching the fatherhood of 
God and the brotherhood of man, the "supreme good" 
is obedience to and oneness with God, and in general 
it implies love to God and man, and involves service 
to both. These ideals Jesus repeatedly presents in 
various forms. Once a wily student of the Law under- and he has « his 

"' "chief good, 

took to test him as follows: "Teacher," said he, "what 
must I do if I am to 'gain Immortal Life' ?" "What 
is said in the Law?" answered Jesus. "What do you 
read there?" His reply was — "'Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and 
thy neighbor as thou dost thyself.'" "You have an- 
swered right," said Jesus, "do that and you shall live" 
{Lk. X, 25 Iff. Cf. ML XII, 28 fif.; ML V, 43 ff.; ML 
XXII, 35 ff.). 

Love toward God and man, then, is Jesus' ideal for 
right living. As John (XIII, 35) declares: "It is by 
this that every one will recognize you as my disciples — 
by your loving one another." "Love" is, however, "love" 
susceptible of so many meanings, and, when stated as 
the ideal of Jesus, has so often stamped Christianity 
as a religion of sentimentality, that it is worth while 



I08 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

to note that the Greek so translated is often a cognate 
of the word for "friend," and a more accurate concep- 
tion is gained by thinking of the ideal as friendship 
with God and man.^ Such a feeling of loyalty to God 
and of good will to men will inevitably lead to a desire 
for social service. Hence Jesus gives us a further ideal 
in his statement of what constitutes true greatness. 

and "service," "Whocvcr wauts to bccomc great among you must be 
your servant, and whoever wants to take first place 
among you must be the servant of all; for even the 
Son of Man came, not to be served, but to serve" (Mk, 
X, 43 ff. Cf. Mk. IX, 35; ML XX, 26; XXm, 11; 
XXV, 31-46; Lk. XXII, 27). 

Hence the sunimum bonum of Jesus may be held to 
be the emotion of friendly love toward God and man, 
which expresses itself in service to one's fellows. These 
are the ideals by which man's moral life is to be guided, 
and which, when summing up his greatest teachings, 

embodied in the Jesus cmbodics iu the form of the Golden Rule: "Do 

Golden Rule, •' 

to others whatever you would wish them to do to you" 
{ML VII, 12] Lk. VI, 31). It should be noted that this 
precept is as practical as it is comprehensive. It does 
not require one to obliterate or lower his own personal- 
ity, but rather to maintain self-respect and at the same 
time similarly regard the personality of every one else. 
Moreover, we have seen that it is the people who adopt 
these ideals of Jesus and strive to follow his "rule" 

1 The Greek verb here referred to is <^iXei&), but ayaTrao) is 
sometimes {e.g. Mt. V, 43 and Lk. VII, 47) employed to express 
much the same idea. In Jn. XXI, 15-17, the two words seem 
to be used synonymously. 



JESUS' CONCEPTION OP LIFE'S IDEALS ICQ 

that are to become members of the "Kingdom of God" 

(ML V, 19 f.). The divine community thus becomes "^th?gg^dom 

a goal of human efforts, as well as a reward of persecu- °^^'*- 

tion and an abode of blessedness, and membership in 

it may, on the social side, be viewed as a species of 

objectified summum honum. 

Jesus' Conception Contrasted with the Formal Ideas 
of the Day. — These ideals for right Kving, however 
phrased, are simple, clear, and easily comprehended by 
all. They make a direct appeal to the emotions, in- 
telligence, and behavior of every one, and have marked 
Christianity as a imiversal religion. They also form 
a strong contrast to the ceremonial and legal idea of ^remEf'^ 
righteousness that prevailed among many in the day opjws"? t^'"^^ 
of Jesus, which consisted largely in such external acts 
as keeping the commandments, fasting, and tithing. 
The fulfillment of these formal requirements, of course, 
is not necessarily opposed to the moral ideals presented 
by Jesus, but both then and in modem times various 
ceremonial and ritualistic observances, denominational 
tests, and particular "isms" have tended to obscure tiVthe^^piace 
the real essence of religion and have been stressed at SleabT^"^ 
the expense of their imderlying ethical basis. At times 
external acts have even come to take the place of these 
fruits of the spirit. 

This was a danger that Jesus fully appreciated. He 
constantly inveighed against formal practices in his 
teaching, although he always made it clear that the 
traditional observances were not intrinsically opposed 
to his ethical ideals. For example, he chided the Phari- 
sees, saying: "You pay tithes on mint, rue, and herbs 



no WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

of all kinds, and pass over justice and love of God," 
but added: "These last you ought to have put in prac- 
tice without neglecting the first" {Lk. XI, 42). On the 
other hand, he first strove to estabhsh sympathetic 
relations with his auditors upon the Mount by saying: 
"Do not think that I have come to do away with the 
Law or the Prophets; I have not come to do away with 
them, but to complete them." And he then uttered 
the warning: "Unless your religion is above that of 
the Teachers of the Law and Pharisees, you will never 
enter the Kingdom of Heaven" {ML V, 20). 

But the clearest contrast drawn between the two 
attitudes, as well as the most extreme requirement ever 
made of any one by Jesus, is found in the case of the 
" rj?t^e rich ^^ young man, who wished to know what he must do 
young man. ^^ sccurc Lumortal Life. Jesus used the Ten Command- 
ments as a preliminary test of his earnestness, and 
finding that he had always kept every formal observance, 
added: "'There is still one thing wanting in you; go 
and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you 
shall have wealth in Heaven; then come and follow me.' 
But the man's face clouded at these words, and he went 
away distressed, for he had great possessions" {Mk. X, 
21 f.). A detailed and graphic touch which seems fairly 
in keeping with the incident is that given in the variant 
presented by the apocryphal Gospel according to tJte 
Hebrews (see p. 14): "The rich man began to scratch 
his head and it did not please him. And the Lord said 
to him, 'How say est thou, "The Law I have kept and 
the Prophets"? For it is written in the law, "Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyseK," and behold, many 



JESUS' CONCEPTION OF LIFE'S IDEALS III 

who are thy brethren are clad in filth and dying of 
hunger, and thy house is full of many good things, and 
nothing at all goes out from it to them.''* Jesus thus 
made clear the contrast between the spirit and the letter 
of the old requirements, and gave the young man the 
strong antidote needed for the formalism and selfish- 
ness into which he had fallen. And many a professed 
follower of the Master to-day, who stands high both 
in the synagogue and the market-place, may similarly 
need to be forced to hark back to these ideals underly- 
ing and animating the formal observances and external 
tests. 

Characteristics of Jesus' Ideals and the Resulting 
Christian Virtues. — It may be well to analyze further 
the ideals of ^'love'' and "service," that their connota- "^v?",*^^ , 

' service imply 

tion may be more fully imderstood. The Sermon on i^e^e!*meS°" 
the Mount reveals a variety of specific characteristics "S; I^d^othl; 
that are implied by these concepts, and a number of ^^^^^^^' 
precepts that find their root in them. The qualities 
especially commended in the Beatitudes are humility, 
penitence, meekness, righteousness, compassion, purity 
of heart, peaceableness, and endurance of injury (ML V, 
3-9). It is interesting to see that the first four of these 
characteristics seem to represent the individual attitude, 
while the last four imply social relations. The ''poor in 
spirit," or humble, are those who have attained to a 
modest estimate of self; the "mourners" have aspirations 
toward a higher seK; the "meek" observe the right at- 
titude toward personal honors; and " those who himger 
and thirst for righteousness" seek an upright life. On 
the other hand, the "merciful" cultivate a kindly atti- 



113 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

tude toward their fellows; the "pure in heart" wish to 
maintain a moral environment; the ''peacemakers" bring 
harmony into social relations; and those "persecuted for 
righteousness^ sake'' ofifer their lives and comfort in the 
cause of social reform, patriotism, and civilization. Later 
in the discourse, as recorded by Matthew (V, 22-47 ^^^ 
VT, I- 1 8), Jesus brings out the implication of his ideals, 
both individual and social, from a negative point of view. 
He forbids angry feelings, continued enmity, impure 
thoughts, plurality of family relations, use of oaths to 
obscure the truth, revenge, limitation of ''love" to 
one's friends, and ostentatious giving, praying, and fast- 
ing. 
Sdtf^neS"**^ Thus, through the ideals of Jesus, Christianity came 
group of virtues, ^q exalt a ncw group of virtues and to iuculcate an 
entirely different point of view from that of any of the 
philosophies that had preceded. In distinction to the 
wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, high-mindedness, 
liberality, imperturbability, and other virtues of Plato, 
Aristotle, and the later Greeks, self-sacrifice, charity, 
mercy, peace, forgiveness, and long-suffering have since 
the time of Jesus characterized the highest levels of 
civilization. Men have no longer merely exulted in the 
pride of life, but faced one another as creatures requiring 
help, consolation, and comfort. As children of a com- 
mon father and neighbors in a divine community, they 
have adhered to the ideals of "love" and "service," and 
have realized the need of aid from their fellows and 
salvation from God. 

Misunderstanding and Criticism of "Passive" Vir- 
tues. — These virtues that have sprung from Jesus' 



JESUS' CONCEPTION OF LIFE'S IDEALS 113 

ideals of "love" and "service" have been generally char- 
acterized as "passive." They have often been severely y^J'^^^^' 
criticised as impractical and even hysterical by those iSc°°°^ 
who pride themselves upon being red-blooded and stren- 
uous in their living. The hyperbolic passage in which 
Jesus seems to advocate the most radical nonresistance 
has especially been an object of ridicule. In this he 
advises: "I say to you that you must not resist wrong; 
but if any one strike you on the right cheek, turn the 
other to him also; and when any one wants to go to law 
with you, to take your coat, let him have your cloak as 
well; and, if any one compels you to go one mile, go two 
miles with him" (Mt. V, 39 ff.). 

But it should be remembered that this teaching was 
given to contrast as sharply as possible his policy of 
patience with that of revenge. It was a reaction to the 
statement just preceding: "You have heard that it was 
said — 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'" 
and it was intended more as a complete repudiation of but opposition 

,..,.-. , , to vengeance, 

this ancient doctrme of vengeance than as an advocacy 
of nonresistance. Jesus felt that, of the two evils, it 
would be better to endure repeated injury than con- 
stantly to seek revenge, since the attempt to equal or 
outdo a wrong that has been inflicted is the direct cause 
of the greatest evils in life, and never removes any in- 
jury or wrong. He wished to emancipate the world 
from the prevailing rule of force by cultivating a con- 
trol of resentment and hatred. He realized how strongly 
imbedded in human nature is the primitive instinct of 
retaliation and revenge, and the necessity for overcoming 
it in the life of reason and morality. Hence he dramat- 



114 WHAT DH) JESUS TEACH? 

ically declares that even the most humiliating surrender 

is better for a man that the continuance of dissension 

and increasing bitterness of feeling. 

Moreover, as we have indicated (see p. 5), the whole 

of Jesus' teaching on any subject is seldom found in a 

single passage. His radical position here must be esti- 

for Jesus could mated in connection with his attitude and acts else- 
be most severe, 

where. Jesus was certainly no "mollycoddle." He was 
possessed of the stronger and more rugged marks of 
character, as well as of the milder and gentler. He 
advocated courage, justice, and firmness, when the occa- 
sion called for these virtues, as tenaciously as he did 
compassion, tenderness, and mercy in their turn. In his 
perfect character were blended stern, as well as mild 
traits, for the strongest minds are ever the gentlest. 

Accordingly, while Jesus counseled long-suffering and 

forgiveness in extreme language, where this advice was 

needed, he could be most severe in his denunciation of 

as in the case of the corrupt scribcs and Pharisees. His excoriation of 

the scribes and ^ 

Pharisees, thesc promiucut classes as "hypocrites," "blind guides," 

"whitewashed tombs," "serpents and brood of vipers," 
and "persecutors of the prophets," is one of the most 
scathing in history (ML XXIII, 14-36). Upon another 
occasion he did not hesitate to deliver a stinging rebuke 
Sg It^th?^''"^ and even to drive the corrupt and grafting ring of mer- 
Tempie. chauts and bankers from the Temple at Jerusalem by 

force. When he found some of these people in the sacred 
place selling oxen, sheep, and doves for the sacrifices, 
and others making large gains in the exchange of foreign 
coin for the Hebrew currency, in which alone the priests' 
charges could be paid, "he made a whip of cords, and 



JESUS' CONCEPTION OP LIFERS IDEALS II5 

drove them all out of the Temple Courts, and the sheep 
and bullocks as well; he scattered the money of the 
money changers, and overturned their tables, and said 
to the pigeon dealers: 'Take these things away. Do 
not turn my Father's House into a market-house"' {Jn, 
II, 13 ff.). And the need of this discipline is shown 
by their abrupt flight. "Thus conscience doth make 
cowards of us all." 

The " Passive " Virtues and the Invasion of Rights. — 
Assuredly these "passive" virtues of Jesus do not in his These virtues are 

, , .i« ' M , ^,^ M» ^°^ inconsistent 

judgment seem to be mconsistent with preventmg or with resisting 

. ..-,.. . ..an invasion of 

resistmg a personal mdigmty or contestmg an mvasion rights; 
of human rights. He did not wish to countenance 
aggressive and persistent injury, but simply to forestall 
continued hate. "Take heed to yourselves," he en- 
joined the disciples; "if thy brother sin, rebuke him," 
though he added: "if he repent, forgive him." Similarly, 
we repeat that the injunction to "love thy neighbor as 
thou dost thyself" {Mt. XXII, 39), does not imply ab- 
solute self-renunciation, but admits a respect for one's 
own rights not less than for the neighbor's. So Jesus 
openly resented the unwarranted blow given him by the 
poUce officer at his trial, saying: "If I said anything 
wrong, give evidence about it; but if not, why do you 
strike me?" {Jn. XVIII, 23). 

The misinterpretation of the ideals of Jesus in this 
matter of force has been heightened by the literal way 
in which they have been taken and followed by certain 
visionaries and doctrinarians. Strange indeed has been 
the perversion of his teachings by people possessed of 
such millennial zeal as Count Tolstoy and other phil- 



Ii6 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



do not Imply 
withdrawal of 
restraint or con- 
donement of 



and are no ar- 
gument against 
righteous war. 



osophic anarchists. The desire of Jesus to eliminate re- 
venge and strife from the world has at times been inter- 
preted as the withdrawal of all restraint of depredation 
and the refusal to punish any crime. But the fact that 
the Master did not formulate a definite philosophy of 
either nonresistance or force, does not by any means 
indicate that he would ever have thwarted the cause of 
justice or have predetermined any case. There is no 
reason to believe that he would have sanctioned a free 
rein for evildoers to prey upon society, nor that he 
would have discouraged the efforts of society to reform 
its members by righteous punishment. The indulgence 
of an injured individual in selfish emotion and revenge 
is very different from a calm and sympathetic judgment 
by an enlightened community. 

Equally has the professed pacifist and internationalist 
strained the Master's teachings into a forbidding of 
war, even in a righteous cause. Jesus did request of 
the friend who used force at his arrest: "Sheath your 
sword, for all who draw the sword will be put to the 
sword'' (ML XXVI, 52). But, on the other hand, we 
find him declaring: "I have come to bring, not peace, 
but a sword" (ML X, 34). Nor should his judgment 
in this individual case of jdelding to his destiny be ex- 
tended to cover nonresistance at all times and seasons, 
and to justify the notion that the sword should never 
be used in defense of human rights. Long-standing 
abuses and injuries to the welfare of humanity and 
civilization must, when peaceful methods have failed, 
be removed by force, if "love," "service," and the 
"Kingdom of God" are to prevail. War is always 



JESUS' CONCEPnON OF LIFE's IDEALS II7 

ethical and Christian, whenever avoidance of it would 
tolerate a condition more evil and unchristian than 
itself. 
The Christian Virtues and Actual Practice. — Nor 

must the '' passive virtues" be supposed to imply want Stue*s^<Sl'S:" 
of activity. "Service," as well as "love," leads to the i?tfc^'°^ 
"Kingdom of God," and is the keynote to the teaching 
of Jesus. Love and friendship are evidenced only by 
their results. Jesus expressed this need of putting his 
ideals into practice by a well-known parable: "Every- 
one, therefore, that listens to this teaching of mine and 
acts upon it may be compared to a prudent man, who 
built his house upon the rock. The rain poured down, 
the rivers rose, the winds blew and beat upon that 
house, but it did not fall, for the foundations were upon 
the rock" {ML VII, 24 f.). On the other hand, he 
likened those who did not act upon his teachings to 
the man that built his house upon the sand, and soon 
had it swept away. 

The Master also constantly indicated that his ideals 
required embodiment in action by emphasizing the 
work involved. The Kingdom of God in a parable 
challenges those imemployed with the query: "Why 
have you been standing here all day long, doing noth- 
ing?" {ML XX, 6). Likewise he refers to the disciples 
in this parable of the vineyard as "laborers" {ML XX, 
i), and elsewhere {Lk. XII, 37) he compares them to 
the vigilant "servants" of the master returning from 
the wedding feast. Similar figurative speech and use 
of terms signifying activity and responsibility con- 
stantly appear in the teachings of Jesus. "Ask, and 



Il8 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

your prayer shall be granted; searc±L, and you shall 
find; knock, and the door shall be opened to you" 
(ML VII, 7), is the essence of Christianity. The apostle 
James (III, 17), therefore, was but following his Master's 
conception of life's ideals when he declared: "Faith, 
if not followed by actions is, by itself, a lifeless thing." 
The Meaning of " Conversion " and " Salvation." — 
But, besides determining the nature of the "good" 
and in setting up a "supreme good," every system of 
ethics is vitally concerned in the most efficient means 
of securing and disseminating the effects of this "good." 
Through the influence of the summum bonum as a guid- 
ing ideal, it is held that the Hves of those adopting it 
will be reconstructed. This is clearly the main purpose of 
the informal and exceedingly practical ethical teachings of 
Jesus. Since men may become the sons of God by striv- 
ing after the divine attributes, attained through "love" 
and "service," "sin" simply means unfihal life or the 
repudiation of likeness to God. And since each human 
"Conversion," soul is of infinite importance, every one must be led to 

or turning back , ^ i » ^ » » i r ^ i > n-.i 

to God, leads to discard sm and claun his npjhtful sonsmp. The act 

the state known *=" ^ 

as "salvation." or proccss of tumiug oue's life back to obedience to 
God and to the divine characteristics through the 
adoption of the ideals of Jesus has long been known in 
Christian parlance as "conversion," and the state at- 
tained thereby is generally called "salvation." 

This reconstruction of a man, often spoken of by 
Jesus as the attainment of the "righteous," " immortal," 

This reconstruc- or "eternal" life, is effected, according to the Master, 

tion, often J ? o 7 

ltSnm?nt%f^^ through repeutauce and faith, and comes through the 
ge; eternal grace and forgiveness of God. He started his ministry by 



JESUS' CONCEPTION OF RECONSTRUCTION II9 

declaring: "The time has come, and the Kingdom of God 
is at hand; repent, and believe the Good News" {Mk, I, 
15). Later he applied the poetic words of Isaiah to 
those who have failed to receive his message of salva- 
tion: "The mind of this nation has grown dense, and 
their ears are dull of hearing, their eyes also have they 
closed; lest some day they should perceive with their 
eyes, and with their ears they should hear, and in their 
mind they should understand, and should turn — and 
I should heal them'^ {Mt. XIII, 15). 

Thus, in this process of conversion eventuating in 
salvation, men must give up their sin, and turn to 
obedience, Godlikeness, and sonship. In psychological 
terms, this simply means overcoming or reshaping the jesu7"n^l'^ van- 
inherited instincts and fixed habits that are inconsistent ^^^ °^ ^2"''^^- 
with the highest ideals and the life of reason. This proc- 
ess is described by Jesus in a variety of figures, all of 
which express more or less the surrender and humility 
necessary for recognizing one's state, repenting, and 
following the new ideals and precepts. Besides the 
familiar phrases, "entering (or 'receiving') the King- 
dom of God," he uses {e.g. Mt. XI, 28 fif.) such terms 
as "coming to Christ," "learning of Christ," "taking 
up his cross," "drinking of his cup," and "taking his 
yoke." ^ Sometimes two or more of these expressions 

* It is most unfortunate that these and other beautiful and apt 
metaphors should have become cant terms in the vocabulary of 
the obscurantist and religious sentimentalist. Such expressions 
as "saved by the blood," "saved by the Lamb," "coming to 
Christ," "taking his cross," "drinking of his cup," and "being 
born again," have too often been used to the confusion of the 



120 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

are used together. The importance of the step Jesus 
describes by comparing it to the discovery of a ** treasure 
hidden in a field" or "a pearl of great value" {ML 
XIII, 44 ff.), and he indicates the quiet, gradual, and 
effective way in which salvation proceeds by likening 
the expansion of the Kingdom to that of the yeast in 
the flour {ML XVIII, 33; Lk. XHI, 20 f.), of the com 
into ''first the blade, then the ear, and then the full 
grain in the ear" {ML IV, 28 f.), and of the small 
mustard seed into a tree {ML TV, 31 f.; ML XVIII, 
31 f.), respectively. 
The Threefold Means of Accomplishing Peconstruc- 
fwchSgl'forthis ^^^ Used by Jesus. — The means used by Jesus to 
jtsSJ'used ^S* bring about this reconstruction of human lives has been 
means threefold. Besides his revelation of the fatherhood of 

God, the potential sonship of man, the ideals of "love" 
and "service," and other features in his teaching al- 
ready discussed at length, humanity has been greatly 
influenced by two other factors. These are, first, the 
embodiment of these truths in the Master's own life, 
and, second, the great example of fidelity to conviction 
Snit7°whh °the ^^^ ^^ty furnished by his death. 
Father, and jj^^ jj£g q£ jggug would sccm to be luiique. It was 

that of the perfect genius in religion. He believed that 
his life was ever united with that of the Father. He 
Hved in harmony with his conception of God's will, 
and sought aid through prayer in his efforts to over- 
religious consciousness or indulgence in maudlin emotions that 
lead nowhere. Religious tactics of this sort have often kept in- 
telligent people from realizing that Christianity is thoroughly- 
rational and in harmony with the highest aspirations of humanity. 



JEStTS' CONCEPTION OF RECONSTRUCTION 121 

come sin and external difficulties. Thus Jesus stirred 
men to emulation by revealing the possibilities of human 
life in his own life and character. He felt that the most 
beneficent results coming to his disciples through com- 
panionship with himself were due to sharing in this 
commimion he held with the Father. In his most re- 
markable intercession for his disciples, he asked ''that 
as thou, Father, art in union with me and I with thee, 
so they also may be in union with us," and then he 
declared: "I have given them the honor which thou 
hast given me, that they may be one as we are one — 
I in imion with them and thou with me — that so they 
may be perfected in their miion" {Jn, XVII, 21 ff.). 
The Master believed that in this way their natural 
demand for a union with God would be satisfied. This 
companionship, in turn, would result in new moral 
motives, impulses, and choices, or, as John (III, 3 and 6) 
phrases it, in being "bom again." 

The other factor in the influence of Jesus was his ws death as an 
death. Through this supreme test of his devotion to itytoduty. 
God, men were encouraged to submit their wills to 
God's purpose in the world and to come to the life of 
complete obedience and harmony. With his extreme 
reforms, Jesus foresaw that death at the hands of the 
rulers was inevitable, but he never for an instant de- 
viated from his ideals and conception of his duty. The 
disciples, however, were imable to understand that the 
Kingdom of which Jesus spoke was not earthly and 
material, and were stunned at the idea of his being put 
to death. When Peter began to protest vehemently, 
Jesus had to explain that this was the only way in which 



122 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

his mission could be performed. Self-sacrifice, he de- 
clared, was the inevitable concomitant of reform, and 
all who wished to follow him must be self-denying even 
to the point of surrendering life itself. Moreover, 
neither his death nor any sacrifice of theirs should be 
viewed as defeat and disaster, but rather as a victory 
of incalculable benefit to humanity. The account of 
the whole incident is most memorable: 

^'At that time Jesus Christ began to explain to his 
disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and undergo much 
suffering at the hands of the Councilors, and Chief Priests, 
and Teachers of the Law, and be put to death, and rise 
on the third day. But Peter took Jesus aside, and began 
to rebuke him. 'Master,' he said, 'please God that shall 
never be your fate!' Jesus, however, turning to Peter, 
said: 'Out of my way, Satan! You are a hindrance to 
me; for you look at things, not as God does, but as man 
does.' Then Jesus said to his disciples: 'If any man 
wishes to walk in my steps, let him renounce self, and 
take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever wishes 
to save his life will lose it, and whosoever for my sake, 
loses his life shall find it. . . . For the Son of Man is to 
come in his Father's Glory. . . and then he will give to 
every man what his actions deserve'" {Mt. XVI, 21-28). 

Thus by his death Jesus set for all men an example of 
fidelity to duty. Hence, it happened that, even as Judas 
went out to betray him, the Master could declare prophet- 
ically: "Now the Son of Man has been exalted, and God 
has been exalted through him; and God will exalt him 
with himself — yes, he will exalt him forthwith " (Jn, 
XIII, 31 f.). 



JESUS' CONCEPTION OF RECONSTRUCTION 1 23 

Summary. — The ethics of Jesus seems to be in har- 
mony with "self-realization," and finds its summum 
honum in "love " and "service." Hence the Golden Rule 
becomes its precept and the Kingdom of God its goal. 
The ceremonial and legal idea of righteousness that pre- 
vailed in the day of Jesus contrasted strongly with these 
ethical ideals of his. When further analyzed, Jesus' 
ideals of "love " and "service " are found to imply charity, 
mercy, forgiveness, and a number of new virtues. In 
teaching these "passive" virtues, Jesus did not advocate 
nonresistance, nor argue against righteous war. And 
the Christian virtues, though "passive," were intended 
to be put into practice. Through these ideals of Jesus the 
lives of those adopting them are to be reconstructed. 
"Conversion," or turning one's life back to God, leads 
to "salvation" and membership in the Kingdom. To 
effect this reconstruction, Jesus used a threefold means, — 
his life and death, as well as his teachings. His life was 
unique in its union with the purposes of the Father; his 
death was an example of fidelity to duty. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING 

Dewey, J., and Tufts, J. H. Ethics. Chapter VI. 
Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. Chapter VII. 
Jenks, Jeremiah W. Social Significance of the Teaching of Jesus. 

Study XII. 
King, H. C. The Ethics of Jesus. Chapters V-VIII. 
Mathews, Shailer. Message of Jesus. Studies III and IX. 
Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Studies 

IV and V. 
Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. Chapters I, IV-VIII, 

and XI-XIII. 
Stevens, G. B . T/te Teaching of Jesus. Chapters IX, XI, and XII. 



CHAPTER Vn 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 

Jesus and the Resurrection. — After having completed 
our discussion of Jesus' conception of God and man, and 
of life's ideals and their effect upon the regeneration of the 
race, we might seem to have all of his message that can 
possibly prove fruitful to humanity. Our real concern 
should be for the improvement of society and for right 
living here on earth, without regard to the future state, 
for this is within our immediate control and responsi- 
bility. If man is immortal and all human beings continue 
to exist in some form hereafter, the whole matter must 
be in the hands of a Supreme Being, infinitely wiser than 
we are, and we can afford to intrust the future to him. 
Speculation would seem to be vain and idle, and immor- 
tality, whether true or not, might seem of Httle import 
in our daily life. 

All of this reasoning might be considered final, were it 

not for the fact that our ideals for present living and our 

conduct now are likely to be inextricably bound up with 

Our ideals .for our couceptiou of the future. This is clearly the case 

present living ^ ^ 

wkh'thTfuSSre "^^ ^^ principles of Jesus, and, if we are to study his 
teachings at all, we must deal with all of them, including 
those concerning the future. Many of his ideas on this 
subject may seem vague and uncertain, especially as they 
have in many instances passed through the medium of 

134 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 1 25 

John's Hellenic philosophy (see p. 21), but we must 
endeavor to fathom them as far as we can. 

Jesus says but little and furnishes no extended argu- 
ment concerning the life hereafter. He seems generally J«"9 
to assume that, since men are the sons of God, they must 
share in his immortality. In the parable of the Rich 
Man and Lazarus, the beggar is depicted as resting on 
Abraham's bosom, which was a metaphorical descrip- 
tion of a happy existence hereafter {Lk. XVT, 19 ff.). 
Similarly, in his account of the Judgment Day, those 
who had devoted themselves to the service of the less 
fortunate are pictured as inheriting in the future a king- 
dom prepared for them from the beginning {ML XXV, 
34 ff .) . His faial words to the disciples, too, assured them 
of a dwelling place that he was going to prepare for them 
in the hereafter (Jn. XIV, 2). Likewise he promised the 
repentant robber that he should be with him that day 
in Paradise {Lk. XXIII, 43). 

Sometimes, however, Jesus does definitely assert the e^fnS^** 
fact of a resurrection and a future state. For example, ^^ resurrecUon, 
in his confutation of the Sadducees, who sought to test 
him through the hypothetical case of the woman who had 
married seven husbands {Mk. XII, 18-27; Mt. XXII, 
23-33 ;L^. ^^^7 27-40), he convicts them definitely from 
their own Scriptures by saying : " As to the dead, and the 
fact that they risQ, have you never read in the Book of 
Moses, in the passage about the Bush, how God spoke to 
him thus — ' I am the God of Abraham, and the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob ' ? He is not God of dead 
men, but of living. You are greatly mistaken" {Mk, XII, 
26 f.). 



126 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

But in every statement concerning the future Jesus 
thiigf uSettfed le2,ves many things unsettled, as if they were not essen- 
tial. He neglects altogether the categories of space and 
time. He is not concerned with the ordinary details as 
to how resurrection takes place, and he undertakes no 
real description of the future existence. He makes no 
statement concerning the way in which the soul is to be 
embodied in the hereafter, though he stresses a resurrec- 
tion of persons, rather than bodies, by stating that the 
resurrection is ''from among the dead." ^ 

It is not altogether clear, according to Jesus, whether 
all men, or only the righteous, are to be resurrected. In 
his discussion with the Pharisees, he maintains that 
''those who are thought worthy to attain to that other 
world and the resurrection from the dead ... are God's 
sons" {Lk. XX, 35 f.). But he speaks elsewhere of the 
"resurrection of the good" {Lk. XIV, 14), as if the bad 
were also resurrected, and in John (V, 29) it is definitely 
stated that "those who have done good rise to life, and 
those who have lived evil lives rise for condemnation." 
It can only be inferred, then, that Jesus held that all 
men would meet with a resurrection, but imder different 
conditions and with varjdng results. 

The Resurrection is Both of the Present and the 
Future. — But the apocalyptic position is somewhat 
softened in John, and, according to that gospel, Jesus 
represents the resurrection to be a matter of the present, 
as well as of the future. John wrote comparatively late 
(see p. 21), and, when it became obvious that the Coming 
of Jesus was not to be soon, he was inclined to feel that 
1 e/c T(av veKptav. 



I 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 1 27 

the resurrection might, in a sense, take place now. For 
example, Jesus is represented as saying: "In truth I tell 
you that a time is coming, indeed it is already here, 
when the Dead will listen to the voice of the Son of God, 
and when those who listen will live" {Jn. V, 25). Sim- 
ilarly, when Martha concedes that her brother will rise 
to life "in the resurrection at the Last Day," Jesus adds The resurrection 

occurs now, as 

at once: "I am the Resurrection and the Life. He that ff as in the 

future, 

believes in me shall live, though he die; and he who lives 
and believes in me shall never die" (Jn. XI, 24 f.). This 
point of view is not contradictory of that in the synoptic 
gospels, but is supplementary to it. 

A possible explanation of this apparent inconsistency 
as to the time when the resurrection occurs, might be through moral 

renewal or a 

that the resurrection of the present may be considered J^Jj*^ °^ *^®''" 
a moral renewal of life, or else that it is a feeling of cer- 
tainty that one will rise again so strong that the resur- 
rection may be said to be virtually present already. 
Possibly we may interpret the resurrection of the pres- 
ent as a combination of both these ideas. The resur- 
rection, as being a conquest over death, may be held 
to transcend the time relation altogether. The believer 
may be said, as it were, from the beginning to be vic- 
torious over death. The resurrection is, of course, also 
asserted to take place in the future, but the teaching is 
more comprehensive than this alone, and includes the 
idea of a victory already begun. This interpretation of 
John would explain why Jesus speaks almost exclusivelp 
of a resurrection of the "good" or "worthy," that is, 
of those who have even now become triumphant over 
death. Jesus might thus further hold that those who 



tional, 



128 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

refuse to believe will also survive, after their actual death, 
although we are nowhere definitely informed what the 
conditions of their resurrection are to be. 

The Judgment. — Another conception closely con- 
nected with the resurrection was that of the Day of Judg- 
Siitf°T\he' ^^'^t. This associated phenomenon, which previously 
HkelSrtradI appeared in many of the Jewish apocalyptic writings, 
seems to have been adopted by Jesus, according to the 
Synoptists, especially Matthew, with his transitional 
emphasis (see p. 16). When speaking of the return, this 
evangehst describes all nations as coming before the Son of 
Man, and being separated by placing the ''sheep "on his 
right hand and the "goats" on his left. He continues: 
"Then the King will say to those on the right 'Come, 
you who are blessed by my Father, enter upon possession 
of the Kingdom prepared for you ever since the beginning 
of the world. For, when I was hungry, you gave me 
food; when I was thirsty, you gave m^e drink; when I 
was a stranger, you took me to your homes; when I was 
naked, you clothed me; when I fell ill, you visited me; 
and when I was in prison, you came to me.' Then the 
Righteous will answer ' Lord, when did we see you hungry, 
and feed you? or thirsty, and give you drink? When 
did we see you a stranger, and take you to our homes? 
or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you ill, or 
in prison, and come to you? ' And the King will reply, 
'I tell you, as often as you did it to one of these my 
brothers, however lowly, you did it to me. ' 

"Then he will say to those on his left 'Go from my 
presence, accursed, into the "iEonian fire which has been 
prepared for the Devil and his angels." For when I was 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 1 29 

hungry, you gave me no food; when I was thirsty, you 
gave me no drink; when I was a stranger, you did not 
take me to your homes; when I was naked, you did not 
clothe me; and when I was ill and in prison, you did not 
visit me.' Then they, in their turn, will answer 'Lord, 
when did we see you himgr}^, or thirsty, or a stranger, or 
naked, or ill, or in prison, and did not supply your wants? ' 
And then he will reply 'I tell you, as often as you failed 
to do it to one of these, however lowly, you failed to do 
it to me/ And these last will go away 'into Ionian 
punishment,' but the righteous 'into JEoman life'" (Mi, 
XXV, 33-46).! 

This account of the judgment, however, must not be 
taken too literally. It should not be supposed to afiford toke^too°Htil:- 
the sole standard by which character is measured by ^^• 
Jesus, or to lay down the only grounds upon which man 
will be rewarded or punished. It is simply an allegorical 
expression of the principle of judgment in general, and 
teaches how apparently insignificant acts of mercy or 
the omission of them may indicate the basic motives 
and principles governing one's life, and thus enable the 
Judge to decide to which general class a person belongs. 

Judgments in the Present and the Future. — But, ac- 
cording to John 2 again, the "judgment," like the resur- 

^This passage is clearly based upon the apocalyptic book of 
Enoch (LXII). 

2 No such statements are found in the Synoptists, and it is, 
of course, doubtful whether they really form part of Jesus' teach- 
ing, or are the product of John's eschatology. Undoubtedly he 
felt that, since the parousia had not occurred, Jesus must have 
meant that we are constantly being judged in this life. 



130 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

rection, would not seem to be a matter of the future 
JonSaUybdng ^lone. It is certauily going on now. Just as the resur- 
made now, rcction bccomcs possible even in the present, through 
the assured feeling of attaining it, so, if we may trust 
John,^ present judgments are continually being made. 
Passages to this effect appear frequently in the Fourth 
Gospel. Thus Jesus tells us definitely: "Now this world 
is on its trial" (XII, 31). He also defends his mission 
by stating: "It was to put men to the test that I came 
into this world" (IX, 39). Elsewhere, he says: "I judge 
as I am taught; and the judgment that I give is just, 
because my aim is not to do my own wiU, but the 
will of Him who sent me" (V, 30). Similarly he de- 
clares later: "If I were to judge, my judgment would 
be trustworthy: because I am not alone, but the Father 
that sent me is with me" (VIII, 16). Hence, according 
to John,^ judgments are ever occurring, since judgment 
is inseparable from salvation. And judgment may rea- 
sonably have been considered part of the work of Jesus, 
since men must be divided into those who believe and 
those who reject his truth. 

The existence of these serial judgments, however, 
as weu as in the would uot be inconsistent with there being a future 

future. . /fxT 1 • T T 1 

judgment. He who rejects me, and disregards my 
teaching," said Jesus, "has a judge already — the very 
Message which I have delivered will itself be his judge 
at the Last Day" {Jn, XII, 48). That is, the constant 
judging culminates in a future judgment, just as the 
aggregate of entries on the debit and credit columns 
eventually determine one's solvency or bankruptcy. 
1 See note 2, page 129. 



JESUS CONCERNING THE' FUTXJRE 131 

This future judgment represents a crisis, which is a con- 
clusion to the continuous judging process that has always 
been going on in each person's life. But even this judg- 
ment may not be final, since, as we shall see (p. 134), 
existence and the moral hfe do not necessarily close with 
the change known as "death.'' 

Reward and Punishment. — The question of reward 
and punishment also is logically connected with that of Reward or pun- 

, * o J ishment always 

judgment. It forms a necessary part of all Jesus' teach- ^JJ^^^^J'^^ 
ings, not only concerning the future, but all other sub- 
jects. Reward or punishment is a verdict accompanying 
judgment, and is the consequence of reconstruction or 
of continued sin respectively. These features are not 
accidental and external, but they come from God and 
are part and parcel of the history of the Kingdom and 
of the individual soul. Jesus repeatedly declared that 
the upshot of the judgment is reward or punishment 
according to the performances of the individual. "For 
the Son of Man," he said, "is to come in his Father's 
Glory, and then he will give to every man what his 
actions deserve" {Mt, XVI, 27). Elsewhere Matthew 
is more specific, and in detailing the sure reward that 
awaits the good and the definite punishment assigned 
to the wicked, he uses the apocalyptic traditions and 
terminology of the day. He reports Jesus, when explain- 
ing the Parable of the Tares {Mt. XVIII, 24-30), as 
saying: 

"The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man. The 
field is the world. By the good seed is meant the people 
of the Kingdom. The tares are the wicked, and the 
enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest time 



133 "WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

Is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. And, 
just as the tares are gathered and burnt, so will it be 
at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his 
angels, and they will gather from his Kingdom all that 
hinders and those who live in sin, and will 'throw them 
into the fiery furnace,' where there will be weeping and 
grinding of teeth" {Mt. XIII, 37 ff.)- 

The "fiery furnace" as an instrument of punishment 
for the wicked, in accordance with apocalyptic accounts, 
is occasionally mentioned elsewhere. A well-known al- 
lusion appears in Mark (IX, 43-46), where Jesus main- 
tains, in a discussion on sin and punishment, that one 
would better lose his hand, foot, or eye than to have his 
entire body cast into " Gehenna. " But the sense in which 
the term is there used is apparently more metaphorical 
than literal. Gehenna was the "unquenchable fire" in 
the valley of Hinnom, just outside of Jerusalem, which 
was intended to consume all the refuse of the city, and 
being burnt in it may be figuratively used here to repre- 
sent the sufferings of those excluded from the Kingdom 
by their unwillingness to undergo the self -discipline and 
sacrifice typified in the extreme by the loss of bodily mem- 
bers. 

So in the case of several statements concerning pun- 
ishment and other subjects reported in the gospels, we 
cannot be certain whether Jesus followed the pathway of 
tradition or was only speaking figuratively and had a 
traditional coloring given his sayings by the disciples. 
He may well himself have employed the current apoca- 
lyptic language, though perhaps as the vehicle of a greater 
truth, or his sayings may have been somewhat misimder- 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 133 

Stood or distorted. At any rate, unless we do hold that 
Jesus was entirely a product of his times and so take the 
statements concerning the "fiery furnace" literally, the 
teaching of the Master stops with the general principles ^^ ^o£b?'not 
of reward and punishment. It is not unlikely that, as in specified, 
all his teachings, he stands for principles, rather than 
specific details. It may well be held that he does not 
weaken the practical operation of his life ideals or of his 
conception of the Kingdom by a circumstantial descrip- 
tion of its joys, and that, except for a few general allu- 
sions and warnings, he was little concerned with a de- 
tailed account of punishment. Certainly much more has 
been said by Jesus concerning marriage and wealth, for 
example, than such conceptions as "heaven" and 
"hell." With him punishment seems to be simply the 
logical outcome of the abuse of a man's life. This view 
of Jesus is not out of keeping with modem thought. 
A man who habitually neglects to develop his fimda- 
mental instincts and capacities in harmony with the high- 
est ideals, may become largely incapable of opening his 
nature to these influences, and so realizing his best self. 
In the terms of Jesus, he loses the capacity of becoming 
a member of God's family, and so is punished by exclu- 
sion from the Kingdom, and is "banished into the dark- 
ness outside" (Ml VIII, 12). As the result of neglect of 
his duties, his social and moral nature has so degener- 
ated that he is imfitted for participation in and enjoy- 
ment of the ideal life. 

Nor is either the punishment or reward to be regarded » 

as " eternal. ' ' The word that has ordinarily been so trans- and they are 

, "^ not "eternal, 

lated IS more properly rendered, as it is here (see pp. 134 f . 



134 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

and 143), as cBonian or "of the age." It means that the 
reward or punishment belongs to that great cBon, — the 
age referred to by apocalyptists, when the Messiah has 
come in trimnph to judge. And life consists in a series of 
decisions, and of progress or retrogression. One never 
stands still in his moral and religious life, and in the 

since death is a , . , , , . . 

transition, and teachings of J csus no rcward or pumsnment is necessarily 

the struggle still o J .... 

goes on. "eternal." Death is but an artificial line. It is merely a 

transition to another state, and men do not cease to be 
men because of death. The life begun here will continue, 
if we believe in resurrection and immortality, and man 
will in the life to come reap exactly what he has sown. 
The consummation will not come with death in the form 
of "eternal" reward or punishment. Man's struggles 
and his moral and religious life may well continue here- 
after. 

The Future Coming of Jesus. — The most discussed 
phase of Jesus' teaching concerning the future is that 
which appears in connection with the accoimts of his Ad- 
vent. All three of the synoptic gospels in several places 
dkt jM^S^fuSIJe represent Jesus as predicting that he would suddenly ap- 
coming, pgg^j. ^ power and glory as the Messiah. We have seen 

(p. 122) that at the time of Peter's protest against the 
death of Jesus, the Master declared the need of this 
sacrifice, and then stated prophetically: "Whoever is 
ashamed of me and of my teaching in this unfaithful 
and wicked generation, of him will the Son of Man be 
ashamed, when he comes in his Father's glory with the 
holy angels " (Mk. VIH, 38; ML XVI, 27; Lk, IX, 26). 
Likewise, after predicting the fall of Jerusalem to certain 
disciples, he declared : "Then will be seen the ' Son of Man 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 135 

coming in clouds' with great power and glory; and then 
will he send the angels, and gather his people from the 
four winds, from one end of the world to the other" {Mk. 
XIII, 26 f.; ML XXIV, 30 f.; Lh XXI, 27 f.). Again, 
when the high priest demanded to know whether Jesus 
claimed to be the Messiah, he replied: "I am, and you 
shall all see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of 
the Almighty; and 'coming in the clouds of heaven'" 
{Mk. XIV, 62; ML XXVI, 64; Lh XXII, 70). 

There are many other passages intimating the same 
views. Jesus clearly predicted, according to the gospels, 
that after his resurrection he would appear in celestial 
majesty, to perfect the work interrupted by his death, 
but still to be renewed and carried on through the ages 
by his spiritual energy. This supreme manifestation of 
his glory was to signalize the triumph of his cause and 
the complete establishment and consummation of the 
Kingdom of God. It was to be immediately preceded by E«-ec«ied by 
many social upheavals and other signs, such as the ap- 
pearance of pretended Christs, "wars and the rumors of 
wars," "famines and earthquakes," persecutions and 
tribulations, and darkened sun, unlighted moon, and 
faUing stars {ML XXIV, 5, 7, 9, 29 and Mk. XIII, 6, 7, 
II ff., 24 f.). 

But, despite these forewarnings the event was to come 
in a startling and unexpected manner, and was pictured in 
lurid colors. "As it was in the days of Noah {Gen. VII), 
so will it be again in the days of the Son of Man. People and in a sudden 

, and unexpected, 

were eatmg and drinking, marrying and being married, 
up to the very day on which Noah entered the ark, and 
then the flood came and destroyed them all. So too, in 



136 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



but unmistak- 
able manner. 



although the 
time is uncer- 
tain. 



the days of Lot {Gen. XIX), they were eating, drinking, 
buying, selling, planting, building; but, on the very day 
on which Lot came out of Sodom, it rained fire and sul- 
phur from the skies and destroyed them all. It will be 
the same on the day on which the Son of Man reveals 
himself" {Lk. XVII, 26-30). Similarly, it is likened to 
the sudden return of the bridegroom in the night, when 
the bridesmaids were unprepared {ML XXV, i ff.), to 
the unexpected arrival of the master when the steward 
is abusing his power {Lk. XII, 42 £f.), or even to the robber 
stealing into a house {Lk. XII, 39 f.). Yet, while the 
appearance of the Messiah was to come about suddenly 
and unexpectedly, there was to be no doubt about it 
when it did come. "For just as the lightning flashes in 
the east and is seen to the very west, so will be the Coming 
of the Son of Man" {Mt. XXIV, 27). 

There is, however, some difficulty in reconciling two 
types of statements made by Jesus concerning the exact 
time when this event is to take place. In certain passages 
he indicates that it will occur within the lifetime of the 
existing generation {Mk. IX, i; Mt. X. 23; XVI, 2^; 
XXIV, 34; Lk. IX, 27). But elsewhere he impKes that 
there will be a lengthened period of waiting {Mk. XIII, 
35; Mt. XXV, I E.\Lk. XII, 42 fl.), and that, as a matter 
of fact, "about ' That Day ' or ' The Hour,' no one knows 
— not even the angels in Heaven, nor yet the Son — 
but only the Father" {Mk. XIII, 32; ilf/. XXIV, 36). 

Such was the prediction concerning his Advent made 
by Jesus in the synoptic gospels. What shall we say con- 
cerning the truth and meaning of this miraculous appear- 
ance? The passages have been interpreted in various 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE I37 

ways. There are many worthy people who maintam h2^beeA?r- 
that they are to be taken in their literal form and that the p'^^^^ ^^^"^^^ 
Coming, with all its accompanying wonders and glory, 
will yet take place. They, of course, have to minimize 
in some way the passages cited above that indicate that 
Jesus did clearly expect to return during the existing 
generation. But most modem readers hold that the 
message is to be taken only in a spiritual sense. They 
declare that the disciples and evangelists misinterpreted 
the statements of Jesus on this subject and reported him 
too literally, or even added descriptions from the apoc- 
alyptic writings of the times. 

The people of Jesus' day had long held to certain tra- ^ 
ditions that had sprung up concerning the coming of 
the Messiah. These apocalyptic accounts depicted the 
glorified appearance and the striking physical phenomena 
and demonstrations of supernatural power that were to 
accompany him and to usher in the establishment of his 
kingdom and rule over all nations and peoples. Hence 
the modem psychological interpretation has been that, al- 
though the Kingdom that was to be founded by Jesus was 
based upon inward ethical and spiritual changes in the 
minds and hearts of men, whenever Jesus hinted at the 
coming crises and triumphs, even his most sympathetic 
hearers assumed that he referred to these long-cherished 
apocalyptic hopes and visible demonstrations of power 
and elory. In other words, the traditionalized followers or. as due to a 

, . . # misunaerstand- 

of Jesus misimderstood him and embodied their inter- ^s of his dis- 

•^ ^ ^ ^ ciples, 

pretation in phrases of the times that the Master was 
supposed to have uttered. Statements that did not at 
all refer to a visible return within the generation of those 



138 "WHAT DID JESTTS TEACH? 

then Kving were, as a result of the disciples' preconcep- 
tions, so understood and recorded. General expressions 
concerning the development of the Kingdom and its 
triumphs over the things of this world were transformed 
into definite predictions of the Messiah's advent, with 
all its popular concomitants. The traditional phenomena 
and displays of divine power were thus blended in the 
record of the gospels with the sayings of Jesus. 

This "psychological" interpretation is not altogether 
convincing. Such an explanation includes some elements 
of anachronism, and seems to cormnit the "historical 
fallacy." It is quite as likely that modernists have in- 
vested Jesus with their own psychology as that the dis- 
ciples did. While the spiritual principles of Jesus may be 
considered valid for all ages and we are only just begin- 
ning to perceive their significance, he must in some degree 
have been the child of his age and people. It was in- 
evitable that he should more or less have taken over the 
*^?obIbf %^"t- prevailing views of the future, and adopted the apocalyp- 
gf^^p°^^yp'^*^ tic eschatology with slight modification. Some apoca- 
lyptic ideas and phrases that he did not use may have 
been attributed to him and he probably read a deeper 
meaning than was generally understood into the apoca- 
lyptic language, but it is inconceivable that the escha- 
tology attributed to him was a complete interpolation.^ 

iThe latest great German critic, Schweitzer, in his Secret of 
the Messiahship and in his Quest of the Historical Jestis main- 
tains that he has given the coup de grdce to the "psycho- 
logical" interpretation, and his ideas have largely been adapted 
by a number of modern theologians of various churches, — Tyrell 
(Roman Catholic), Sanday of Oxford and Burkitt of Cambridge 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 139 

On this basis, too, the discrepancy concerning the time 
of the Advent may reasonably be explained. Jesus 
probably took into account the gradual evolution of 
human affairs in contemplating the triumph of his King- 
dom. He seems often to have realized that it might be 
long delayed, and he even declared that the hour was 
known only to God. On the other hand, the Old Testa- 
ment prophecy and the inner consciousness of his Messiah- 
ship imbued him with a faith in his triumph so real and 
assured and a vision of it so clear that at times it seemed 
to him aheady imminent. 

And even if we hold that Jesus expected the literal 
fulfillment of all these Messianic phenomena and that 
this was altogether a mistake and an illusion, it does not 
discount his real greatness nor the validity of his message. 
Moreover, the account of the astounding Appearance is 
scarcely more wonderful than the sublime confidence of 
Jesus that a small group of devoted followers, imbued 
with his own spirit, could leaven the whole world and 
become the nucleus of a great society with increasing ^org^^oJderfJJ 
expansion and infinite possibilities for humanity. His Jri^ph.^^""'"^ 
widespread spiritual rule, which has come about through 

(Anglican), Scott (Presbyterian), Moffatt (United Free Church, 
Presbyterian), etc. Schweitzer makes Jesus and his eschatology 
practically a product of the apocalyptic times into which he was 
born, but grants a certain amount of plausibihty to the hy- 
pothesis of Wrede {The Messianic Secret), — that the apocalyptic 
element was interpolated by Mark. "The historical Jesus, of 
whom the criticism of the future will draw the portrait," says he, 
"will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on 
the ground of a literary fiction of the earhest Evangelist or on 
the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception." 



I40 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

the gradual acceptance of his principles and the recon- 
struction of human living, while quite in accordance 
with all natural law, has been, if anything, more remark- 
able than a supernatural return in the flesh and the 
miraculous establishment of a world empire. 

Summary. — Jesus both assumes and asserts a "res- 
urrection," but he leaves the details unsettled. Resur- 
rection may be said to occur in the present, as well as in 
the future, through a moral inspiration or feeling of 
certainty that one will rise again. Jesus also asserts the 
principle of "judgment," but his description must not be 
taken as laying down the sole grounds upon which men 
are rewarded or punished. Judgments are constantly 
being made, since they are inseparable from salvation, 
but there is also a judgment of the future. The gospel 
description of "reward" and "punishment" must be 
considered as figurative, and neither one can be taken 
as ''eternal." A most difficult phase of Jesus' teaching 
concerning the future is that connected with his future 
coming in power and glory, which the gospels represent 
him as prophesying. In this Jesus adapted the apocalyp- 
tic ideas of the times, but these were scarcely more won- 
derful than his spiritual triumph. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING 

Charles, R. H. Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life. 

Charles, R. H. Religious Development between the Nerw and Old 
Testaments. 

MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. Chapter 11. 

Penniman, Josiah H. A Book about the English Bible. Chap- 
ter XV. 



JESUS CONCERNING THE FUTURE 14I 

Rhees, Rush. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, Part II, Chap- 
ter IX; Part III, Chapter III. 

Schweitzer, A. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Chapters 
XVIII-XX. 

Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. Chapters II and 
VIII. 

Selwyn, E. G. The Teaching of Christ. Chapter V. 

Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters XIV and XV. 



CHAPTER VIII 

JESUS^ TEACHING CONCERNING THE KINGDOM AND THE 
CHURCH 

The Expectation of a Restored Kingdom in the 
Apocalyptic Writings. — The discussion in the last chap- 
ter concerning the future reveals more fully than any 
that has preceded the focal point in the teachings 
of Jesus. To a large extent all the other instruction 
&ofUi?King- centers in his conception of the Kingdom of Heaven, 
dom of Heaven ^y^j^ ^^^ adapted from the apocalyptic traditions of 
the times. His idea of God and man, his conception 
of life and its reconstruction, and his teaching concern- 
ing the resurrection, judgment, and future coming may 
all, in a sense, be said to grow out of his idea of the 
divine community, and the coming of the Messiah in 
power and glory. While these by-products are of the 
greatest importance and constitute his permanent 
message, the Master was primarily concerned in the 
coming of the Kingdom, where the will of God is to be 
accepted by his sons, and Jesus, as his vicegerent, is to 
admit men to citizenship or reject them, according as 
they have, or have not, been prepared to enter by means 
of penitence, prayer, and righteousness. 

This complex of conceptions contained various factors, 
but probably presented itself to Jesus as a whole and 
wat subsumed under a single name, — the Kingdom 

X4a 



TEE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 143 

of God. And, as it has several times been hinted, we JJ^^'J^JT^ 
must go back to the Jewish Scriptures for its eiplana- ^ 
tion. The idea had been a continuous and lasting 
element in the religion of the Jewish people up to the 
time of Jesus, and was effectively used by him as a means 
of conveying his message. The Jews^had for centuries ^^^^^^^^p^op^- 
looked forward with longing and confidence to a Golden vSktiSdom? 
Age when God's rule should be complete, and, under 
the leadership of a Messiah, they should return to their 
pristine powe?: and glory. Amid religious and moral 
crises and the oppression inflicted by various dominating 
people^, they continued to expect a restoration of the 
days of the Davidic kingdom, when Israel had been 
prosperous and famous. These ideas appear in such 
prophets as Daniel and Zechariah and in the apocalyp- 
tic books called Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon, and 
the Assumption of Isaiah, and are elaborated^ in the 
apocalypses of Enoch, Baruch, Noah, and many other 
recently discovered books. They are characterized by 
figurative and symbolic language, and contain predic- 
tions concerning the final issue in human histoiy in the 
form of an "apocalypse" or revelation. 

As time went on, the apocalyptic conceptions became 
more and more heightened. It was definitely prophe- with a variety oS 
sied that the reign of renewed prosperity was to be 
inaugurated by a popular uprising against the dominant 
Roman power, and that the movement, as we have seen, 
was to be preceded by various phenomena. A total 
eclipse of the sun was to occur and the stars were to 
fall from their elements, and there were to be universal 
wars and anarchy. The Messiah was to have a fore- 



144 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

runner, to turn the hearts of the people, and Antichrist 
was to be overthrown. The endless Kingdom was to 
be ushered in with a judgment, over which the Messiah 
presided, and to be enjoyed by the righteous in a new 
heaven and a new earth. Those found wanting at the 
judgment were to be rejected from the Kingdom, and 
burnt or tortured in a special part of Sheol. Provision 
was made for the dead in the doctrine of a resurrection, 
although it is difficult to say whether all, or only the 
good, were expected to rise. 

The Interpretation as Adapted by Jesus. — There 
were naturally wide differences in detail as to the nature 
of the Kingdom and the personality of the Messiah, 
although the apocalyptic writings agreed in most es- 
sentials. While the new monarchy was generally re- 
garded as earthly in location and character, its heavenly 
origin was never forgotten. Sometimes the Almighty 
was depicted as the king, and sometimes the Messiah 
was so regarded; occasionally the latter served as the 
vicegerent of the former. The Kingdom itseK was 
variously regarded as (i) the sequel of a political 
revolution, in which God would enable the oppressed 
to release themselves; (2) the result of divine action 
alone, in which humanity had no part except to keep 
the Law; or (3) the outcome of a religious movement 
of the people, rather than a poHtical upheaval. Elements 
of all three interpretations appear in various parts of 
the gospels, and were more or less adopted or adapted 
by Jesus. But while he was somewhat a product of 
his times and seems to have been influenced by the 
apocalyptic atmosphere, descriptions, and language 



THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 145 

(see p. 137), he leans toward the third of these inter- 
pretations and is inclined always to regard the King- 
dom as a spiritual one. This his hearers often found 
it difficult to understand. The constant tendency of jesus^^r^'mis- 
even his disciples was to conceive of the Kingdom as ^ ^"^° 
a great political creation. Hence, we find such incidents 
as the request of John and James, or their mother, that 
these apostles stand first in the monarchy, or the last 
inquiry of the disciples: "Master, is this the time when 
you intend to reestablish the Kingdom for Israel?" 
{Acts I, 6). 

It must, therefore, have been a disappointment to 
his disciples when Jesus founded no party, led no 
popular uprising, and made no use of the sword. 
They could scarcely conceive of a victory attained 
through humility, sacrifice, and service. The import 
of such a Kingdom of God was slow in dawning upon 
them, and required much patient teaching concerning 
its applications in a variety of directions that we have 
discussed in the foregoing chapters. According to the ["on'o/th?KFn^- 
view of Jesus, the coming of the Kingdom meant for the ^°°'* 
most part a relief from spiritual, rather than political, 
slavery. Man's nature had been corrupted by sin, but 
it was possible for him to recover his membership in 
the divine community through repentance. The coming 
of this spiritual polity and the deliverance of man 
through God, he came to proclaim as the "gospel" or 
Good News. 

The Relation of the Church to the Kingdom. — 
Apparently Jesus conceived of the complete realization 
of the Kingdom as occurring some time in the future* 



146 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



The Kingdom 
was foreshad- 
owed by the 
brotherhood 



that he sought 
to organize, 



But the Kingdom of God was also considered by him 
to be "at hand" in the incipient community or brother- 
hood, which foreshadowed that which was to come. In 
other words, the ecclesia or "congregation" was regarded 
as a species of proleptic Kingdom. (In order to build 
up a community that should inherit this coming King- 
dom, Jesus gathered around him a group of followers 
and strove to instruct them in his conception of God 
and the higher law and to produce in them a radical 
change of will. He believed that by bringing them into 
the right fellowship with God, he would cause them to 
conform to the conditions that were soon to prevail. 
He intended to have them form the nucleus of the new 
people that God would set apart for himself after his 
judgment. They could thus avail themselves of the 
powers and privileges of the Kingdom, and become at 
once the children of the new age. In his conception 
of the Kingdom, then, the present and future were 
somewhat blended; it seemed to him so near that the 
approach of it could already be felt. 

Hence, while the Kingdom was yet in the future, 
Jesus desired that there should be called into existence 
a group which had broken from the existing order and 
should seek to identify itself with that to come. He, 
accordingly, brought the twelve into a species of per- 
manent relationship with himself as his associates and 
messengers, and thus the nucleus of an organization 
was formed. At that time a common life and fellow- 
ship were established, with simple rites of initiation and 
membership taken over from contemporary apocalyptic 
thought, such as baptism {Mk. I, 4, etc.) and the Mes- 



THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 147 

slanlc banquet {ML XIV, 22 ff.)- TWs, however, ft not 
to say that Jesus expected his brotherhood to be a for- 
mally organized institution with authoritative officials, 
set laws, a creed, and ceremonial, such as is generally 
indicated by the word "Church" to-day. He was little fKoicemId 
concerned with founding a religious institution. His StutioSl^*''^^ 
chief interest was not in a Church, but a Kingdom. He 
seldom spoke about organization and left behind no 
fixed ritual, although he used baptism, which he had 
inherited from Judaism, as the symbol of moral regen- 
eration and a sign of admission to the Messianic com- 
munity. He himseK formulated no code of rules, but 
simply described the spirit of Christian life, which his 
disciples were expected to learn and follow. The prin- 
ciples he taught were to be used only as a guide in the 
case of a quarrel, difference of opinion, or actual injury. 
For the procedure to be used in disputes, however, 
Jesus did outline this policy: "If your brother does 
wrong, go to him and convince him of his fault when 
you and he are alone. If he listens to you, you have won 
your brother. But, if he does not listen to you, take 
with you one or two others, so that ' on the evidence of 
two or three witnesses, every word may be put beyond dis- 
pute.' If he refuses to listen to them, speak to the Church; 
and, if he also refuses to listen to the Church, treat him 
as you would a Gentile or a taxgatherer" (Mt. XVIII, 
15 ff.). Then he added: "I tell you, all that you forbid 
on earth will be held in Heaven to be forbidden, and all 
that you allow on earth will be held in Heaven to be 
allowed. Again, I tell you that, if but two of you on 
earth agree as to what they shall pray for, whatever it "oe, 



148 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

it will be granted them by my Father who is in Heaven. 
For where two or three have come together in my Name, 
I am present with them'' (ML XVIII, 18 ff.)- 

The Basis of the Petrine Theory. — This apparently 
is as far as Jesus goes anywhere in prescribing the by- 
laws or the government of the congregation he wished to 
establish. And this seems to be decidedly elastic and 
democratic in its form. It includes no codified canons 
and no definite officials and hierarchy such as were after- 
ward evolved in the history of the Christian Church. 
ft™wasg1?en°the ^^ ^^ interesting also to note that, in the passage usually 
disciples as a citcd to Substantiate the claim that Peter was given a 
special recognition and supremacy over the other dis- 
ciples as Christ's vicegerent upon earth, exactly the 
words used in the passage above for "forbid" and 
"allow" ^ are employed by Jesus. The complete text 
upon which this "Petriae theory" is largely based reads 
as follows : "Yes, and I say to you, Your name is ' Peter ' — 
a Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church (or 
Congregation), and the Powers of the Place of Death ^ 
shall not prevail over it. I will give you the keys of the 
Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth 
will be held in Heaven to be forbidden, whatever you 
allow on earth will be held in Heaven to be allowed" 
(ML XVI, 18 f.). 
with that These words were directed to Peter, in the presence 

granted to ' ^ 



eter, 



1 Beco and Xvo); in the King James Version and elsewhere they 
are translated literally "bind" and "loose." 

2 Usually translated "Hell," or better, "Hades," but used not 
in the sense of a place of punishment, but with the Greek signifi- 
cance of the abode of all the dead. 



THE KINGDOM AND THE CHtTRCH 149 

of the disciples, just after that impulsive follower, in 
response to a question asked by Jesus of them all, had 
made clear recognition of him as the Messiah. Jesus, 
then, being pleased that his mission had become so re- 
vealed in his life, took Peter as an index of the little 
group of the "faithful,'' and in a pun declared that he had 
proven himself the bed rock upon which the congregation 
was to be founded, — the pattern disciple after whom 
were to be modeled the members of the brotherhood 
that was to unlock the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven. 

But, however we interpret this passage, there is no J^'J,.^,^^ ^J^J^, 
indication that Peter was ever given any official recog- ciariuthority^S 
nition or special authority by the disciples themselves. ^^^^'■• 
He was simply a natural leader in a company of equals 
and a sort of spokesman in the democratic group. The 
same interpretation is probably also to be made of the 
two other passages {Lk, XXH, 31 f., and Jn. XXI, 15 ff.) 
in which Peter seems to be given a special commission. 
And no greater significance need be attached to the fact 
that his name always appears first in every list of the 
apostles {Mk. HI, 16; Mt. X, 2; Lk. VI, 14; Acts I, 13), 
or that throughout Acts Peter is obviously the spokes- 
man and leader of the group. James, rather than Peter, 
presided at the Council in Jerusalem, when Paul and 
Barnabas disputed with the Judaizing Christians, who 
wished to insist upon the rite of circumcision {Acts XV, 
13 ff.). Again, Peter was freely criticised by the other 
disciples, whenever they thought him in the wrong. A 
typical instance of this was the occasion when he was 
attacked on the ground that he had eaten with the 
undrcumdsed, and in defense related his vision at Joppa 



150 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

{Acts XI, 2 ff.). Similarly, Paul exhibited the vacillating 
nature of Peter and his own promptness in pointing out 
his inconsistency. "When Peter came to Antioch," said 
he, "I opposed him to his face; for he stood self -con- 
demned. Before certain persons came from James, he 
had been in the habit of eating with Gentile converts; 
but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold 
aloof, for fear of offending those who still held to cir- 
cumcision. ... I said to Peter before them all, ^if you, 
who were born a Jew, adopt Gentile customs, instead 
of Jewish, why are you trying to compel the Gentile 
converts to adopt Jewish customs?'" (Gal. II, 11 ff.). 
Certainly Paul and the other disciples do not seem to 
have heard anything of Peter's vicegerency or of any 
infallibility in his judgment. 

The Nature and Importance of the Church. — This 
whole question of the organization and the proper govern- 
ment of the Church, however, is a matter that has been 
much mooted. Not only do the two grand divisions of 
Christianity, popularly known as "Catholic" and "Prot- 
estant," radically differ upon the matters involved, but 
the various Protestant denominations, and, to some 
extent, the Catholic orders, are not altogether a unit. 
But this would seem to be a matter of relatively minor 
importance, and one upon which every person may de- 
cide according to the evidence and the dictates of his 
own conscience. The fact remains, whether or not Jesus 
Say?be^en a" anticipated all the officials and ceremonies of the Church 
Snfnot a°Si- to-day iu forming his small brotherhood, that the in- 
lection. stitution began not as a collection of persons, but as a 

group. The idea of a redeemed community was funda- 



THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 151 

mental In early Christian thought People were to In- 
herit the Kingdom not as a mass of separate individuals, 
who had been won to the principles of Jesus, but as com- 
mon parts of an organic whole, bound by the imity of a 
single purpose. In order to participate in the new life, 
one must become a member of the body, and the in- 
dividual apart from the entire community was as naught. 
Jesus himself organized this brotherhood of the future, 
and afterward his disciples clung tenaciously to the idea. 
They insisted that their powers and privileges belonged 
to them as a body and that the individual could receive 
them only in so far as he was a member of that body. 
It may well be that in the course of time this idea has 
become somewhat set and formal. The divine commu- 
nity may have crystallized into a social institution or- J^^^'tetu-*' 
ganized and administered like any other, and the early t^o^aiized, 
Christian teaching may have been somewhat perverted 
and degenerated into the dogmatic attitude that there 
can be no salvation outside of this privileged institution. 
And it is clear that the Church can never exactly repre- 
sent the Kingdom, since there may be many outside 
the Church and not formally connected with it that are 
to be accounted among the "faithful," and among those 
of the professing may be hypocrites or inconstant mem- 
bers, who are not really part of the Kingdom. But in 
the beginning the Christian faith was rightly identified 
with a community into which men had to be admitted 
before they could participate in the Kingdom, and the 
Church is now organically a natural development from 
the Messianic Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus. 
Moreover, some such social organization was needed 



152 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

t^h°iTelT to perpetuate the principles of the Master. To bring 
most effective, ^^out the dissemination of new truths and methods of 
Kving, we must take advantage of the deep-l3dng social in- 
stinct in humanity. If a religious point of view is to 
prevail, it has to find social expression, and to lead out 
into common sympathies and activities. "No man Kveth 
to himself alone. ' ' Certainly the way in which the Church 
has extended out of its primitive beginnings in a remote 
Roman province into a great world rehgion, without 
either outward revolution or popular excitement, and 
with the complete transformation of thought, viewpoint, 
morals, and activities it has occasioned, and the great 
persistence and perpetuity it has exhibited, surviving all 
the states and nations in existence at its foundation, 
have fully justified its formation and whatever evolution 
that has taken place. The Church is to-day, as it has 
been for centuries, both the chief form of social contact 
among those already endeavoring to incorporate the 
teachings of Jesus in their lives, and the most active 
means of winning over those outside of the Kingdom to 
efforts toward salvation and the reconstructed life. It 
is most universal and effective, and until late years about 
the only force that has been systematically exerted in the 
regeneration of society. 

Summary. — All the teaching of Jesus centers around 
his conception of the Kingdom of Heaven, which goes 
back to various apocal}^tic writings of the Jews. Jesus 
tended toward a spiritual interpretation of the Kingdom, 
which was much misunderstood. He regarded the coming 
of the Kingdom as future and present, but held that it 
was to be foreshadowed by an earthly community, for 



THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH 1 53 

which he arranged common bonds of fellowship. He 
does not, however, seem to have instituted authoritative 
officials or ceremonial, although he outlined a procedure 
for cases of dispute. Peter was apparently a natural 
leader, but he does not seem to be recognized as the 
vicegerent of Jesus by the other disciples. The Church 
has never been considered a collection of individuals, but 
an organic group, and, although at times it has been over- 
institutionalized, it has harmonized with the social 
instincts of humanity, and has been a most efficient means 
of developing Christianity and regenerating society. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING. 

Jenks, Jeeemiah W. Social Significance of the Teaching of Jesus. 
Study III. 

Mathews, Shailer. Message of Jesus. Study VIII. 

Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Study III. 

Rauschenbusch, W. Christianity and the Social Crisis. Chap- 
ter II. 

Rauschenbusch, W. Social Principles of Jesus. Part II, 
Chapters IV and V. 

Scott, E. F. The Beginnings of the Church. Especially Lectures 
I, VI, and X. 

Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. Chapters I, and 
IV-VI. 

Selwyn, E. G. The Teaching of Christ. Chapters I-IV and VI. 

Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. Chapters V and XIII. 



CHAPTER rX 

JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 

Jesus Uttered Principles Rather than Precepts. — The 

question is often asked whether Christianity is practicable 
to-day. With the passage of these many centuries, and 
the tremendous changes in social, political, and economic 
conditions, can a point of view formulated in a remote 
comer of the Roman world still obtain in modem society? 
Do Jesus' teach- Do the principles of the fatherhood of God, the brother- 
present lociety? hood of man, "love" or friendship, service, and "salva- 
tion " or reconstmction, any longer have a bearing upon 
human life and conduct? Does "the Kingdom of God" 
yet endure, and is the "congregation" started by Jesus 
still an active force in the regeneration of humanity? Do 
the teachings of Jesus have any message for us, and if so, 
what is it? 

If we expect to find direct legislation on social problems 
and specific reforms in the teachings of Jesus, we are 
doomed to disappointment. Very little in the way of 
eixplicit social teaching appears in the gospels. Jesus was, 
in general, not concemed with the type of injunctions laid 
down under the Mosaic Law, or even with the applica- 
tions of his principles made for the early Christian groups 
by his great disciple, Paul. The gospels and the early 
part of Acts, in which Jesus' real principles and social 
teaching are discovered, differ from the Pentateuch and 

XS4 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 1 55 

the Epistles In about the same way that a constitution 
does from legislative statutes. Jesus formulated prin- 
ciples rather than precepts. He did not attempt to set up Jejus feit that 
laws and make everything on one side of the line right S"gw:eete?S" 
and on the other side wrong. His chief work was the 
elaboration of ideals and the description of how spiritual 
powers might be realized. He seems to have felt that 
rules are temporary, but that principles are eternal. Nor 
did he confine himself to social and economic reforms. 
It was his mission to reveal and inspire. A reformer 
works for a single age ; a revealer is for all time. The mind 
of Jesus was raised above the social issues of the times, 
and thus his outlook was wider and his insight deeper. 
He surveyed the social struggle from above. He viewed 
it as an incident, as it were, in the campaign of Gk)d. 
Hence his views of society as it is are infrequent, and his 
chief interest is in what it may become. 

But this absence of rules and detailed directions in the 
teachings of Jesus did not come about because there was 
no need of reforms in the Roman Empire of his day. 
Political oppression and social abuses were at that time Hence he did not 

- , Til 1 r concern himself 

rampant and overt m a way seldom known before or with abuses of 
since. The reason why the Master did not concern him- 
self with these crying problems of the times, was simply 
because his attention was fixed upon the means by which 
all social questions might find their own solution. He 
would not limit the scope and duration of his work by 
uttering a series of moral precepts adapted to the age 
and the existing social situation alone. The "new 
birth " was more than a new subjection to law. His prin- 
ciples penetrate to the springs of conduct, to the inner 



156 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

Spirit, and the secret determinations of man, and he felt 
that the moral force thereby generated could be trusted 
to work out specific reforms in every age and under all 
circumstances. 

The Social Teachings of Jesus Are Incidental, and 
Often Seem Contradictory. — Hence the teaching of 
Jesus upon various social problems is fragmentary and 
isolated. His treatment of reforms comes about in a 
purely occasional and incidental fashion, and he seldom 
He turned from evcu approachcs the making of a code or system. When- 
Sifin'^h"''' ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ with a problem, he turned from its direct 
consideration to the principles imderlying it. He dealt 
with it as a physician does with symptoms. For example, 
in the case of the man who wanted Jesus to compel his 
brother to share the property with him, the Master 
refused to intervene, but added, probing the real seat 
of the difficulty: ^'Take care to keep yourself free from 
every form of covetousness; for even in the height of his 
prosperity a man's true Life does not depend on what he 
has" (LL XH, 15). 

The social teachings of Jesus, then, seem to be usually 

a species of by-product or illustration of his principles, 

although, as is often the case with by-products, the value 

His statements may bc vcry great. But the fact that each statement 

grew out of '' ^ o 

special occa- cn-cw out of thc occaslou and of the needs of the person 

sions, and often o r- 

seem inconsist- addrcsscd, not infrequently makes the teaching of Jesus 
upon any one point seem contradictory in details. For 
example, we saw that Jesus appears to comisel nonre- 
sistance in the suggestion: "When a man gives one of you 
a blow on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well " {Lk. VI, 
29), or in his statement: "All who draw the sword will be 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 157 

put to the sword" (ML XXVI, 52); but, on the other 
hand, he seems to declare as positively: "I have come to 
bring, not peace but a sword" (ML X, 34), and later he 
advises each departing disciple to "sell his cloak and buy 
a sword" (Lk. XXII, 36). Similarly, Jesus seems to be 
equally inconsistent in declaring: "Alas for you who are 
rich" {Lk. VI, 24), but in meeting with the young man 
of great possessions and loving him (Mk. X, 21). 

Obviously we cannot gain the views of Jesus from any 
one statement on a subject. We must reserve our judg- 
ment until we have examined all the passages where he 
dealt with it, and must take into critical consideration the 
temperament and experiences of the one reporting him. 
Otherwise we shall be certain to be partial and one-sided 
in our understanding of his social teachings. For each 
of his seeming pronouncements is but the outgrowth of 
the incident with which he is dealing, and is largely col- 
ored by it, and it must be viewed as an illustration of 
some underlying principle. For Jesus concerned him- 
self with the promulgation of principles, rather than def- 
inite rules. 

Jesus' Attitude toward Marriage and Divorce. — The 
only place where Jesus has ever seemed to depart from his 
usual procedure of laying down principles rather than 
laws, is found in the case of marriage and divorce, and 
even this exception is more apparent than real. Let us 
examine this seeming instance of specific legislation as 
reported in the three synoptic gospels. The oldest ac- 
count reads: 

" Some Pharisees came up, and, to test him, asked: 'Has 
a husband the right to divorce his wife? ' ' What direction 



IS8 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

did Moses give you? * replied Jesus. * Moses/ they said, 
'permitted a man to draw up in writing a notice of separa- 
tion and divorce his wife/ 'It was owing to the hardness 
of your hearts/ said Jesus, 'that Moses gave you this 
direction; but, at the beginning of the Creation, God 
made them male and female. For this reason a man 
shall leave his father and mother, and the man and his 
wife shall become one; so that they are no longer two, 
but one. What God himself, then, has yoked together, 
man must not separate.' When they were indoors, 
the disciples asked him again about this, and he 
said: 'Any one who divorces his wife and marries 
another woman is guilty of adultery against his wife; 
and, if the woman divorces her husband and mar- 
ries another man, she is guilty of adultery ' " {Mk. X, 
2-12). 
The general position here taken by Jesus would seem 
Jesus insisted to bc fairly clear. In opposition to lax conditions in the 
tegrityofthe maintenance of the family that had arisen under the 
Mosaic law and that had become scandalous under the 
Roman jurisprudence, he seems to insist upon the integ- 
rity of the marriage bond. He admitted that, imder the 
crude conditions when the Mosaic law (see Deut. XXTV, 
i) was instituted, it may have been found necessary to 
permit men to dismiss their wives because of small faults 
or mere displeasure and remarry, in order that worse 
might not happen. But, as against this, he asserted the 
older law of God and of our very natures {Gen. I, 27 and 
n, 24), that by marriage two lives and personalities have 
been merged, and a spiritual, as well as physical, union 
has been formed. He seems to have regarded marriage 



JISUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 159 

not as a concession to human weakness, but as a fulfill- 
ment of the innate social and spiritual needs of man. Be- 
cause of the importance of such a union to the welfare of 
the individual and society, he maintained that it should 
not be lightly broken. He is even represented as declar- 
ing that the relation could not be dissolved without the 
commission of adultery. 

This sentiment is briefly corroborated by the careful 
statement of Luke (XVI, 18), but the version of Matthew in general he re- 
(V, 32 and XIX, 9) softens the statement to: ''Any one with^rem'am-age, 
who divorces his wife, except on the ground of her imchas- 
tity, and marries another woman, is guilty of adultery. '* 
The exception, however, is probably an ecclesiastical 
gloss of Matthew's (see p. 16), to make matters a little 
easier for the Church. It does not affect the principle, 
for, in the case of adultery, the coalesced personalities may 
well be regarded as having been sundered. Obviously, un- 
der this interpretation of Matthew, the innocent party 
might re-wed without offense, and modem thinkers, who 
claim to be in harmony with the spirit of Jesus, have at 
times gone further than Matthew in the looseness of Manyiegai 
iJieir construction. Desertion, habitual cruelty, heredi- di?o?c?sleL out 
tary insanity, venereal disease, or even nonsupport, as a the^spTrit°or'^'* 
cause, has by some been held to be the full equivalent of 
adultery in breaking the physical and psychical union. 
Such an elastic interpretation is, of course, very ques- 
tionable, especially if we undertake to extend it to all of 
the two score of causes recognized in various states of the 
Union, or even claim, as do some people, that divorce and 
a new marriage are in harmony with the principles of 
Jesus, whenever conjugal love is felt by one or both par- 



l6o WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

ties to be dead.^ While these views of divorce may pos- 
sibly be defended on the ground that they are more prac- 
tical, judicious, or sociologically soimd, they would seem 
to strain the principles of Jesus beyond the breaking 
point. The civil law may with propriety maintain that 
marriage is a temporary contract arranged for the con- 
venience of the parties concerned, and scholars may rea- 
sonably hold that the monogamic family is but the prod- 
uct of evolution and is subject to further transition and 
change, but certainly shiftiness or impermanence in such 
a vital social relation hardly seems in keeping with the 
ideal fraternity and the social and divine nature of man as 
conceived by Jesus. 

But even in this matter, it is not likely that Jesus 
wished to assume the attitude of a lawgiver and formulate 
a definite program or unchanging scheme of domestic re- 
but he does not latious. WHlc the spirit of his teachings is clear, they 

assume the ... 

^tndeoiai&w- seem to be intended not as legislation, but as an illustra- 
tion of his ideas about the nature of marriage, which are 
in keeping with all his principles concerning the nature of 
God and man and of sin and salvation. It is a genuine 
union of personalities, physical and spiritual, and, if the 
Kingdom, or divine society upon earth, is to be realized, 
there is great danger in instability. The principles of 
Jesus, however, constitute an ideal and not a law. It does 
not seem probable that concerning the matter of mar- 
riage and divorce alone, vital as the maintenance of the 

^This latter situation, it is claimed, means a continuance of 
physical relations when the psychical have been destroyed, and 
is a sex outrage and a violation of the idea of union set up by 
Jesus. 



giver. 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY l6l 

family is to his idea of brotherhood and a divine society, 
he would have varied from his usual procedure. He was 
primarily a promulgator of great principles; not a promo- 
ter of specific social reforms. 

His Reverence for the Family. — Jesus' reverence 
and care for the preservation of the human family ap- Jj|"je^h^^°^** 
peared in a variety of other ways. The family was the gmliy?"" '^® 
finest development imder the Jewish prophets and 
sages, but the regard for it was greatly elaborated by 
Jesus and his ideal of social structure centered about 
it. Upon this analogy he based his conception of the 
Kingdom or heavenly family. With him the unity 
of the family became a social force, molding all man- 
kind into one divine family under the fatherhood of 
God. Through the home alone he felt that the finest 
and most significant social inheritances can be taught 
and trained into character. And without the coopera- 
tion of the family and society, he scarcely hoped that 
much could be accomplished for the race. 

This regard of Jesus for the family was also re- 
flected in his habitual sympathy for domestic life and 
his considerate attitude toward women. He placed wonfin^^uljon a 
woman upon a par with man, and made her some- p^^'"'^^"*"' 
thing more than a plaything or toy, — more than a 
creature of man's fancy, an instrument of his pas- 
sion, or a subject of his tyranny. With Jesus, woman 
was regarded as the companion and friend of man, 
and became endowed with the same rights and 
duties, — 

" A creature not too fair and good 
For human nature's daily food." 



l62 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

While woman had come to be very largely emanci- 
pated before the days of the Roman Empire, and to 
occupy a fairly important position among the Jews, 
Jesus raised her beyond any standing she yet had known. 
In Rome she was continually ridiculed by the satirist 
and writer of comedy, and in Judaea she could easily 
be divorced by her husband and had little recourse 
against this abuse. 

The condition of equality, sympathetic companion- 
ship, and respect to which she attained through Jesus 
is witnessed by numerous incidents in his life. There 
is nowhere recorded a dealing of Jesus with women 
that is not respectful and kindly. The housewife car- 
ried to him her cares of preparing the meal, and was by 
him raised to sentiments beyond her dull routine {Lk, 
X, 38-42). The degraded woman called forth his sym- 
pathy, and to her he revealed an ability to be pure and 
kind at the same time {Lk. XXI, 38 ff.; Jn. Vm, i £F.). 
It was women that especially afforded him and his 
apostles material support out of their own means, in 
gratitude for what he had done for them {Lk, ViJJL, 2 f.). 
A woman, too, through grateful faith, anointed him 
with costly perfume during his last days upon earth 
{ML XXVI, 6-13; Jn. Xn, 1-8). Finally, it was a wo- 
man of whose welfare he thought even when death im- 
pended, and with his last words he commended his 
mother to the care of his beloved disciple {Jn. XIX, 
26 f.). 

Thus, the great apostle, Paul, in interpreting the 
teachings of Jesus, might well say: "All distinctions 
between . . . male and female have vanished; for in 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 163 

union with Christ Jesus you are all one" (Gal, HI, 28). 
Yet in maintaining the equality and companionship of 
women, as elsewhere, Jesus held to principles rather 
than precepts, and was not concerned with social re- 
forms and specific legislation. He did not directly 
attack any of the conventions that then and centuries 
since have kept woman as a political, legal, and eco- 
nomic dependent of man. He never inveighed specif- 
ically against the double standard of morality, nor ad- specmc^^refo°Sis. 
vocated equal rights for women. Here also he seems 
to have felt that, as his spirit and general teachings 
prevailed, all special cases of injustice and evil would 
naturally vanish. 

The importance that Jesus attached to the integrity 
of the family is also seen in the deep personal inter- 
est and regard that he had for children. He could 
never conceive of children being treated by their par- 
ents in any except a kindly way (Mt. VII, 9 f.; Lk. 
XI, II f.). The most familiar picture that we can form 
of the Master shows him with little children upon his 
knee or in his arms (Mk. IX, 36; X, 6). Likewise, we 
read that *' little children were brought to Jesus, for 
him to place his hands on them, and pray" (ML XIX, 
13). And he seems to have been glad that children 
were playing an important part in his triumphal entry 
into Jerusalem (ML XXI, 15 ff.). 

Jesus loved children for their simplicity, intuition, 
humility, and teachableness, and, because of these 
qualities, made them generally symbolic of the entrance 
of an individual soul into the divine commimity. "Let SenS^mboift 
the little children come to me," he said, "and do not christian life. 



164 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

hinder them; for it is to the childlike that the Kingdom 
of God belongs. I tell you, unless a man receives the 
Kingdom of God like a child, he will not enter it at all" 
{Mk. X, 14 f.; Lk. XVIII, 16 f.; ML XIX, 14). Simi- 
larly, he made the life of the child typical of the real 
Christian life, when the disciples came to him and asked: 
"WTio is really the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" 
On that occasion he called a little child to him, and said: 
"Any one who will hmnble himself like this child — that 
man shall be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. 
And any one who, for the sake of my Name, welcomes 
even one little child like this, is welcoming me" {ML 
XVIII, 1-5). So, too, he uttered the prayer: "I thank 
thee. Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that, though 
thou hast hidden these things from the wise and learned, 
thou hast revealed them to the childlike! Yes, Father, 
I thank thee that this has seemed good to thee" {ML 
XI, 25 f.). Hence, when about to leave his disciples, 
Jesus referred to them as his "children" {Mk. X, 24; 
Jn. Xm, 33). 
and since his day Siucc the day of Tcsus our attitude toward children 

the attitude to- ... 

^reati^^cfan^S ^^^ ^^^^^ training and discipline has greatly improved. 
Children now have a hold upon the thoughts, feelings, 
and conduct of men such as was never possessed in 
ancient times. While many factors have undoubtedly 
contributed to this humanization, one chief cause has 
been the life and teachings of Jesus. Yet here again 
it is with Jesus a matter of ideals and principles, rather 
^res^ribl'^iiSS ^^^ ^^ specific precepts and laws. He never prescribed 
gr their train- ^iTiy definite regulations for rearing and educating chil- 
dren, or for their treatment by parents or others. He 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 165 

seems to have felt that his conception of the fatherhood 
of God and brotherhood of man, and the ideals associ- 
ated therewith were sufficient to produce the most 
satisfactory results in every age. He simply taught the 
dignity of every human soul, the duty of sympathizing 
with the weak and lowly, and the important position 
of children in human life. It has been left to those who 
would follow him to apply these principles and to fit 
them to the needs and possibilities of an imperfect 
society. 

Jesus' Use of Banquets and Social Life. — The gen- 
eral attitude of Jesus toward social life and recreation 
may also be readily gathered from his statements and 
conduct upon sundry occasions. It is obvious that, 
while he was " a man of sorrow and not unacquainted with 
grief,'' this was not the dominant note in his life. His 
whole soul was wrapped up in duty and achievement, 
but he often sought joy and diversion as a means of 
refreshing himself for his own work and of teaching 
higher lessons to others. He was no ascetic, but associ- 
ated himself with an accepted hospitality from all classes. 
There is no record of his ever declining an invitation 
to a social gathering. He began his mission by being 
present at a wedding feast {Jn. II, 1-12), and closed 
it with bringing his disciples about a common board 
{Mk. XIV, 15 ff.). He was entertained by his future SSJ^for'" 
disciple, Matthew, upon an occasion when "a number oSonf/''^'''^ 
of taxgatherers and outcasts took their places at table 
with Jesus and his disciples," and his association with 
these people brought him much censure {Mk. II, 13-16). 
Likewise, he encountered criticism by requesting an 



l66 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

invitation to visit in the home of Zaccheus, who was 
a tax-gatherer and a*' sinner '^ {Lk. XIX, 5 ff.)- More- 
over, it was at a dinner given him by the Pharisee, 
Simon, that *'a woman, who was an outcast in the 
town, . . . brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and 
placing herself behind Jesus near his feet, . . . anointed 
them with the perfume," and thus led to Simon's ques- 
tioning the status of Jesus as a prophet {Lk. VTE, 36- 
39). And at a breakfast to which he was asked by 
another Pharisee, we know that he was taxed by his 
host with not observing the Jewish ceremonial {Lk. XI, 

37 f-). 

Upon many other festive occasions Jesus must have 
been in attendance. Banquets often figure as the central 
feature in his parables, and even the Prodigal Son closes 
with a celebration of this kind. This frequent mention 
of and participation in social life during his ministry 
brought down upon the Master much abuse not only 
for the company he kept, but as a "glutton and wine- 
to^prepSf fo? bibber" {ML XI, 19; Lk. VII, 34). But Jesus was, of 
hdp''othere°'^ course, neither an epicure nor a mere pleasure seeker. 
Life to him was more than food and drink {ML VI, 25; 
cf. Rom. XIV, 17). It was always his purpose, by means 
of festive gatherings, to prepare himself for further work, 
and to advance the happiness and moral welfare of 
others. 
^y^orS^(?^ Hence Jesus did not treat any particular material 
^ki°™tertaiii- pleasure or species of social life as inherently wrong and 
an unmitigated source of e\dl, but taught that it be- 
came so only when completely >delded to and made an 
end in itself. Nor, on the other hand, did he specifically 



ment; 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 167 

prescribe banquets, paxtJes, and other amusements. 
Everything of the sort must become a means to some- 
thing higher. In his philosophy there were no set rules 
with regard to forms of diversion. Nothing was def- 
initely required or forbidden; all depended upon the 
use made of it. Food and clothing, creature comforts u^n'thJ'u^ 
and enjoyment, were all of value in their way, but he ^^^ °* *^ 
bade his disciples: "first seek his Kingdom, and then 
all these things shall be added for you" (ML VI, 31 ff.)- 
He did not condemn the joys and relaxations of this 
world, nor advocate self-abnegation per se. He held 
that we overcome the world, not by isolating ourselves 
from it, but by subordinating it to our higher uses. He 
prayed for his disciples: "I do not ask thee to take them 
out of the world, but to keep them from Evil" {Jn. 
XVn, 15). He preferred that they should rather re- 
main in the midst of society as " the Light of the world" 
{ML V, 14). 

Jesus' Attitude toward Wealth. — Again, in regard to 
the accumulation of wealth in this life, as already 
noted (see p. 157), we must be careful not to distort the 
teachings of Jesus. We must look for underlying prin- 
ciples, rather than for definite commands. The various 
passages of the gospel in which he treats of wealth 
must not be taken literally or as a set of disconnected 
aphorisms, but the scattered statements must be care- 
fully weighed and a general impression derived. 

On the one hand, there are innumerable passages, 
especially in Luke (see p. 18), where Jesus pointed out 
the dangers of wealth. He hinted constantly at the Jgfh".^ 
difficulties that exist for the holders of great riches, and 



i68 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 



transitoriness, 



dulling of 
sympathy, 



Sternly warned those who were very prosperous. Riches 
he repeatedly showed, in the first place, are transient; 
the tenure of them is brief, and the pleasures that they 
can bring are limited. The rich man of the parable, who 
had lived only to fill his bams, found that his life was 
required of him before he had time to enjoy his wealth. 
"So it is," said Jesus, "with those who lay by wealth 
for themselves and are not rich to the glory of God" 
{Lk. XII, 2i). Hence he advised his disciples: "Sell 
what belongs to you, and give in charity," since the 
credit thereby obtained in heaven would not be liable 
to theft or loss, like earthly wealth {Lk, XII, 33 f.; Mt, 
VI, 19 f.). The possession of wealth, too, he clearly 
saw, tends to dull one's sense of human brotherhood, 
and to cause him to forget the existence of misery in 
others. The rich man was utterly oblivious of Lazarus, 
who lay at his gate, was covered with sores, and longed 
to satisfy his hunger with the crumbs that fell from the 
other's table {Lk. XVI, 19 ff.). Likewise, the wealthy 
young man of conventional morals, who consulted Jesus, 
was felt by him to be too complacent of existing con- 
ditions, and was told: "There is one thing still lacking 
in you; sell everything that you have, and distribute to 
the poor" {Lh XVIII, 22\Mt. XIX, 21). This advice en- 
tailed a more complete surrender of possessions than Jesus 
elsewhere required, but he realized that the antidote was 
none too strong for the selfishness of the individual con- 
cerned. The man's wealth, he saw, had blinded him to 
the suffering of the poor, and affected his entire character. 
His accumulations had not only resulted in wronging 
others, but in largely ruining his own possibilities. 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 169 

This dwarfing of personality, so subversive of one's ^^^^ °^ p*'- 
best interests and happiness, was another reason for 
Jesus* invectives against wealth. "What good is it to 
a man," he asked, "to gain the whole world and forfeit 
his life?" {Mk, VIII, 36). And again he exclaimed: 
"Alas for you who are rich, for you have had your com- 
forts in full" (Lk. VI, 24). He thus condemns the rich, 
not because of their wealth, but because they have no 
further aspiration. And, as he says later: "Even in the 
height of his prosperity a man's true Life does not depend 
on what he has " {Lk. XII, 15). As we have seen, too, in 
all the preceding citations, it was only by a regard for 
the poor and the consequent development of his own 
character that one could come into harmony with the and want of 

•' harmony with 

love of the Father, and claim membership in the King- ^od; 
dom. "No one," Jesus said elsewhere, "can serve two 
masters, for either he will hate one and love the other, 
or else he will attach himself to one and despise the other. 
You cannot serve both God and Money" (ML VI, 24). 
And this was the ground for his hyperbolic remark to 
the disciples, when the young man of great possessions 
went away distressed at his suggestion of giving up his 
wealth: "It is easier for a camel to get through the 
needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of 
Heaven" {ML XIX, 24; ML X, 24 f.). 

On the other hand, Jesus frequently showed no op- 
position whatever even to very great wealth. If he had 
disapproved of the accumulation of property, it would 
be difficult to account for his use of metaphors drawn 
from the relations and duties of householders, landowners, 
and stewards, to throw light upon spiritual truths. More- 



It ministers to 
public good, 



17* WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

jSifiSK^whcn ^^^^> ^^^ ^^ approved of Zaccheus, for exMnple, when 
he offered to give one-half his property to the poor, 
there is no indication that he objected to his retention 
of the remainder (Lk. XIX, 8). Although he generally 
recognized that the pursuit of riches might destroy the 
highest ideals and interests both of man and society, 
he elsewhere taught that great possessions could be 
rightfully obtained and faithfully used. If they master 
the possessor, he becomes their slave; but they may be 
made his servant and be used to minister to the highest 
interests of himself and society. Wealth may be prop- 
erly used for charity, for increasing the happiness or 
culture of the people at large, or for enabling one to 
carry on scrupulously and effectively his special work 
in life. Money, Jesus would seem to hold, is not owned, 
but owed by the rich; it constitutes a trusteeship, not 
a possession. Wealth is justifiable, provided that it con- 
tributes to the public good. 

Hence in the parable of the talents (ML XXV, 14-30), 
Jesus did not condemn, but decidedly approved of thrift 
and the accumulation of property. "Well done, good, 
trustworthy servant," the master is represented as saying 
to the one who had successfully invested the sum in- 
trusted to him, while the one who had kept the money 
unemployed is called, "You lazy, worthless servant !'* 
And the master even went so far in rewarding the thrifty 
servant as to present him with the money taken from the 
other and to declare: "To him who has, more will be 
given, and he shall have abundance; but, as for him who 
has nothing, even what he has will be taken away from 
him." So even an unjust steward is commended, be- 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 171 

cause he utilized the material means of his master to 
secure things of more value, — friendship and business 
credit {Lk. XVI, 1-12). A wise administration of wealth, 
therefore, is one that leads to the building of character, 
and Jesus counsels: "Store up treasures for yourselves 
in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and 
where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your 
treasure is, there will your heart be also" {ML VI, 19 f.; 
Lk. XII, 33 f.). 

Thus it is possible to get back of these two radically 
divergent views of Jesus about wealth to the general 
principles involved. He does not stigmatize the accumu- ^^ sSatt? 
lation of riches in itself, except as it brings a man's char- jeopard^ '' 
acter into jeopardy. Wealth may be used to the benefit *^^'^^*=^^- 
of society and the strengthening of its possessor. No sin-" 
gle social type — the rich or the poor — monopolized the 
sympathy or acceptance of Jesus, and he never intended 
to array one class against the other. The categories of 
his social judgment were never those of wealth and pov- 
erty; he was interested only in the extension of the King- 
dom of God. 

Jesus' Ideas about Almsgiving. — Similarly, Jesus |g,'i\ ^L'^"^® 
has little to say about the giving of alms. From one «^^°s; 
passage only do we gather that he was himself accus- 
tomed to give to the poor {Jn. XIII, 29), and there it is 
foimd merely stated as a fact without further reference 
to attendant circumstances. <(^He was concerned with 
removing the conditions of poverty, rather than with 
alleviating it. ;The cure of the disease he believed to lie 
in eradicating its causes, moral and intellectual, rather 
than in treating the symptoms. He endeavored to de- 



172 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

velop industry and fidelity, on the one hand, and check 
all exaction, exploitation, and other social ills on the other, 
by putting men in the right relations with God and their 
fellows and inspiring fraternity and helpfulness, and by 
recognizing wealth as a species of stewardship. He was 
strikingly considerate and tender toward the poor, as is 
shown in a variety of his sayings. '^ Blessed are you who 
are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God," for example, 
is the form in which the beatitude appears in Luke (VI, 
20). The complacent young man is advised to" give (or 
distribute) to the poor" {ML XIX, 21; Lh XVIII, 22), 
and the disciples are instructed to "give to everyone who 
asks of you" {ML V, 42; Lk. VI, 30). But no definite 
indication is ever given as to the intention, manner, or 
amount of the donation. 

In fact, almsgiving is clearly only an incidental of the 

teaching of Jesus, and may at times be even contradic- 

hc warns against tory of his main principles. For, praiseworthy as he 

its abuses, i i r . ^ -, 

assumed it to be, he often warns against the abuses, 
ostentation, or commercialism into which it may sink. 
*' Therefore, when you do acts of charity," he said, ''do 
not have a trumpet blown in front of you, as hypocrites 
do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may 
be praised by others. There, I tell you, is their reward! 
But, when you do acts of charity, do not let your left 
hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your 
charity may be secret; and your Father, who sees what is 
in secret, will recompense you" {ML VI, 2 £[.). In the 
case of the Good Samaritan {Lk. X, 30-36), the financial 
relief is pictured as of much less importance than the 
compassion and care shown him. Likewise, the rich men 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 173 

who gave of their superfluity to the Temple offerings 

were scorned in comparison with the widow with her 

two farthings, of whom Jesus said: "I tell you that this 

poor widow has put in more than all the others; for every 

one else here put in something from what he had to spare, 

while she, in her need, has put in all she had to live upon " SfdefiniS^'Ses 

(Lk. XX, 1-4). Evidently, with Jesus, almsgiving is an ^°'^'*' 

important virtue, but no definite rules can be laid down 

for it, and it requires watchfulness and discipline. Its 

value depends upon the spirit in which it is given and the 

sacrifice it entails. 

The Attitude of Jesus toward Industrial Conditions. — 
In his teaching concerning industrial life, too, Jesus gave 
no specific instruction and laid down no definite program. 
Reviewed all questions from above and treated them from 
the standpoint of preparation for the Kingdom of God. 
Although many have represented him as the advocate of 
one system or another — individualism, communism, so- 
cialism, anarchy — in reality, he never advocated any jesus advocated 

definite form of economic control. He would have held oi economic con- 
trol, 

that any industrial system is to be valued by its contri- 
bution to character rather than by economic advantage, 
and that our desires and ambitions should be for spiritual, 
and not economic, profit. His motive is quite different 
from that of various propagandists. Where they would 
begin with economic needs and proceed to economic re- 
forms, he started with spiritual needs and led toward a 
spiritual Kingdom. The one holds to economic trans- 
formation as the basis of character; the other bases his ex- 
pectations upon the belief that character will produce 
economic transformation. 



174 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

Thus Jesus impKed that the real difficulty with indus- 
trial conditions is not mechanical, but moral. From his 
principle already discussed, that wealth is to be held by 
its possessor in trust for society, it would follow that a 
faithful steward would see that those for whom he held 
it were given sufficient means for their support. This 
would mean at least a living wage for all. Hence, while 
Jesus recognized in the parable of the talents that men 
should be rewarded according to their efforts, by the 
story of the workers in the vineyard (ML XX, 1-15) he 
but estimated au taught that thc employer should be interested not 

existing institu- ,./,. . -iit e •• 

tjj>^^accordmg chiefly m gettmg the work done for a mmuniun of cost, 
of fraternity. b^t iu sceuig that employment and a living were afforded 
to all. Those who had worked but an hour, as well as the 
full-time laborers, had done their best, and it was the 
duty of society to afford them both a livelihood. Here 
also, then, Jesus was not an economist, and was urging 
no industrial propaganda, but he would determine the 
value of any existing economic institution or custom 
according as it tended toward the establishment of the 
principle of fraternity or not. 

Jesus* Position on Politics and Government — Con- 
cerning government and politics also, Jesus seems never 
to have made any definite pronouncement. While we 
find general statements, comparisons, and implications 
on the subject scattered through the gospels, he no- 
He did not favor whcrc formulatcd a poHtical system. To have advocated 

one form of 

government or Que type of govcmment above all others, or to have 
favored one political party or another, would have 
limited his message to his own day; and he would al- 
most certainly have ruined his influence, had he aroused 



JESUS AND MODEliK SOCIITT 175 

political feelings in any direction. At that time the 
civil government was largely in the hands of Rome, 
but the Jews held two very different attitudes toward 
it. While the Roman Emperor had granted relative 
local autonomy to Herod Antipas, son of Herod the 
Great, who represented him in Galilee and Perea, Judaea 
came more directly under the imperial government 
through the procurators. The majority of the people 
felt that they should submit to this latter control, but 
a goodly minority, known as the "Herodians," were 
ready to revolt at any favorable moment. It was, there- 
fore, with the idea of embroiling Jesus either with the 
Roman government or with the Herodians, that the 
Pharisees once asked him: "Are we right in paying taxes 
to the Emperor, or not?" But, instead of answering 
categorically, he said: "Pay to the Emperor what be- 
longs to the Emperor, and to God what belongs to God" 
{Mk. Xn, 13 ff.; ML XXII, 15 ff.; Lk. XX, 20 f.). 

Thus Jesus avoided the horns of a dilemma and a 
partisan position in politics. He simply recognized con- J^*J,^i^ ^on- 
stituted authority in its own sphere, and advocated Jy"'*** *"^^°'" 
obedience to it when it existed for the welfare of society. 
Elsewhere he showed his acceptance of existing mon- 
archical institutions by the illustrations he often drew 
from the life of royalty. Such were the parable con- 
cerning the nobleman, who went to claim his kingdom 
and left ten poimds with each of ten servants {Lk. XIX, 
12-27), the story of the king who made a marriage feast 
for his son {Mt. XXII, 2-10), the parable of the king 
that was more merciful than one of his subjects {ML 
XVni, 23-35), and the statement about a kingdom 



176 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

divided against itseK {ML III, 24). Similarly, he re- 
spected and supported the existing ecclesiastical authori- 
ties. When the collectors demanded the annual Temple 
rate, after stating his claim to exemption from this tax 
for the maintenance of his Father's house, he instructed 
Peter how to pay it ^ (Mt. XVII, 24 ff.)- He would not 
descend to a controversy, but yielded in this nonessential, 
in order that he might stress something more important 
and that his example to the contrary might not tempt 
others to stumble. 
At other times also Jesus showed respect for the needs 
he held that and claims of the state and established relidon, but, as 

God's claims ^ ' ' 

were lupreme. Jn the casc of the civil tax, he implied that this was of 
small import as compared with obedience to God. While, 
for example, he justified Pilate as a judge and submitted 
to the government, he answered Pilate's declaration of 
his power by saying: "You would have no power over 
me at all, if it had not been given you from above" 
(Jn. XIX, 11). He was never primarily concerned in 
earthly governments, but in the establishment of a spir- 
itual ELingdom. Thus he earlier declared to Pilate: 
*'My kingly power is not due to this world. If it had 
been so, my servants would be doing their utmost to 
prevent my being given up to the Jews; but my kingly 
power is not from the world" {Jn. XVIII, 36). Since 
the establishment of the Kingdom of God was his chief 
mission, he gave no definite instructions concerning 
earthly government and poKtical parties. He yielded 

* This incident does not appear in Mark (IX, ss), and seems 
to have appealed to Matthew, because of his desire to heighten 
a narrative through the miraculous (see p. 16). 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETY 1 77 

obedience to existing authority, and confined his teaching 
to principles and motives. For in politics, as elsewhere, 
he held that principles are eternal, and principalities are 
ephemeral. 

The Principles of Jesus and Their Application. — 
Many other social, economic, and political questions are 
discussed in the gospels. But in all his treatment of 
social problems, as in the rest of his teaching, Jesus 
lays down no definite laws. And any one who seeks Hence on aJi 

•' •' social problems 

to discover a "rule of thumb" is liable to pervert his Jo^'Jefimte kws* 
teaching. Such a man is endeavoring to make a sign- 
post out of a guiding star. He finds precepts and rules, 
where Jesus had the vision to formulate broad principles 
amd high ideals. He would make a rule of thumb of the 
teachings of the Master, to save himself the necessity 
of thinking and working out his own salvation. He 
prefers, by a blind selfishness, to limit the sayings to 
his own brief span of life, while Jesus uttered his teach- 
ings for all time. Of course, this is not to say that Jesus 
has no message for modem society. On the contrary, 
it has been found that, as it advances, civilization comes 
constantly into greater harmony with the principles and 
teachuigs of Jesus. But we must make the application ^fU^to^" 
for ourselves. His more important message does not ^pp^'*^ 
exist for the dull, inert, or closed mind. 

Summary. — Jesus formulated ideals and principles, 
and did not lay down definite rules, since the latter could 
apply but to a siagle age, while principles are eternal. 
His utterances upon a given social problem, therefore, 
were made as illustrations of his principles, and, growing 
out of the occasion, often seem contradictory, unless 



178 WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

they ar« wautnlned together. Jesus* attitude toward 
divorce seems most nearly an exception to this general 
procedure, but, while he held that marriage muted two 
personalities, and that any breach of the union, though 
it were legal, constituted adultery, it is doubtful whether 
even here he acted as a lawgiver. The reverence of Jesus 
for the integrity of the family is reflected in his con- 
sideration for women and his love of children, but he 
did not advocate any special reforms in the treatment 
of women, nor prescribe regulations for the rearing of 
children. Jesus used social occasions for recreation and 
instruction in higher views of life, but formulated no 
rules concerning diversions. The accumulation of wealth 
was regarded by Jesus as dangerous to the possessor 
and to society, although he held that it was justifiable, 
if treated as a stewardship. While he commended alms- 
giving, he wished to guard against its abuses. In indus- 
trial life, he advocated no one system, but held that 
each must be measured by a moral, rather than an 
economic standard. Nor did Jesus formulate a definite 
political system; he recognized existing authorities, but 
held to the principle that obedience to God is paramount. 
On all other social questions, Jesus laid down no specific 
laws, but left his followers to apply his principles to the 
problems of each age. 

SUPPLEMENTARY READING 

Abbott, Lyman. The Ethical Teachings of Jesus. 

Jenks, Jeremiah W. Social Significance of the Teaching of Jesus. 

Studies VI-XI. 
Kent, C. F. The Social Teachings of the Prophets and Jwus. 

Chapters XVI and XVIII-XXII. 



JESUS AND MODERN SOCIETT 179 

Mathews, Shaher. Message of Jesus. Chapters IV-Vn. 

Mathews, S. Social and Ethical Teaching of Jesus. Studies 
VII-IX. 

Mathews, S. Social Teaching of Jesus. Chapters III-IX. 

Peabody, F. G. Jesus Christ and the Social Question. Chapter I. 

Rauschenbusch, W. Christianity and the Social Crisis. Chap- 
ter II. 

Rauschenbusch, W. Christianizing the Social Order. Part II, 
Chapter VI; Part III, Chapter^I. 

Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. Chapters XV and XVI. 



CONCLUSIONS 

WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? 

The teachings of Jesus were presented in the dress 
of the Messianic prophesies of the apocalyptic writers, 
which he had inherited and adapted. They centered 
around the Kingdom of God, which was to be estab- 
lished in the near future, and involved the iQauguration 
of a new order, in which everything would be in com- 
plete accord with the divine will. Jesus felt that this 
future Kingdom was so near at hand as to be already 
projecting its influence into the present, and that men 
might at once begin to submit their lives to its higher 
law. To this end he sought to foreshadow the new 
order in an earthly congregation or "church," which 
should be ready to inherit the divine Kingdom when 
it came. He gathered around him a group of followers, 
and strove to teach them his new conceptions of God 
and the higher law. But the Messianic categories 
in which the Master's teachings were presented had 
begun to lose their meaning almost before the gospels 
were recorded. They have ever since had to be inter- 
preted anew by the Church he started, in order to be 
intelligible in later times and with different peoples. 
And to-day the world finds its consolation and help 
in the moral and reKgious ideals of the Master and the 
aspect of Jesus as a teacher, rather than in the con- 

i8o 



CONCLUSIONS l8l 

summation of a Messianic Kingdom and in his coming 
in power and glory. 

His teachings may be briefly recapitulated. Jesus 
described God as "father," with the attributes of pro- 
tecting care, pity, and forgiveness, and held that men 
became the sons of God by adopting these character- 
istics. On the social side, he regarded God as "king," 
and made humility, purity, and service the test of 
membership in his Kingdom. These ideals, then, lead 
to a process of reconstructing one's life known as "con- 
version," and the state attained thereby is called "sal- 
vation." In his teaching concerning the hereafter, ac- 
cording to John, Jesus asserted a present resurrection, 
as well as a future. The same evangelist represents 
him as teaching that judgments are constantly being 
made, but culminate in final judgments; and that re- 
ward and punishment will not consummate with death. 
For the solution of social problems — divorce, the family, 
diversions, wealth, almsgiving, industrial conditions, 
and poUtics, Jesus has furnished principles and not 
definite rules. And his utterances upon any problem 
were illustrative of these principles, and, growing out 
of the occasion, often seem contradictory, unless they 
are examined together. 

Thus, while his central concept of the Kingdom was 
not really original with Jesus, the ideas that were at 
first ancillary to it are largely his own. He certainly 
associated with Messianism a higher ethical teaching 
than the traditional rules of conduct imder the old Law, 
and this was the legitimate fruit of his own deep sym- 
pathy with the will of God. It involved a fellowship 



l82 WHAT Dm JESUS TEACH? 

and communion with God so intimate that it could be 
best expressed in the terms of the relation between 
father and son, and he felt that he had in his own life 
anticipated this relation. Hence the Messianic guise 
has affected but little the permanent contribution made 
by the teachings of Jesus. The presuppositions from 
which they made their start have largely disappeared, 
but the real message is brighter than ever. It may be 
differently apprehended by various ages and peoples, 
but it always makes the same striking appeal. What 
Jesus taught has held a meaning for all races and gener- 
ations of men, unequaled by that of any other teacher, 
and the Christian teachings have made their way into 
the world, imsurpassed for the healing of the nations. 



BOOKS FOR THE STUDY OF JESUS AS A 
TEACHER 

Besides the standard translations, a number of books may 
be mentioned as valuable references for further study. The list 
given below, while extensive, can make no claim to completeness. 
It has been confined to works in English, and for the most part 
to those written since the opening of this century. The books 
seeming to be more important have generally been marked with 
an asterisk, and some brief bibliographical notes have been at- 
tempted in various places. 

I. THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

*Lake, K. The Text of the New Testament. (Gorham, 1908.) 
Inexpensive and scholarly. 

* MiLUGAN, G. New Testament Documents. (Macmillan, 1913.) 

Illustrated, popular, and interesting. 
Scrivener, F. H. A. The New Testament in Greek. (Cambridge 

University, 1908.) 
SouTER, A. Text and Canon of the New Testament. (Scribner, 

1913.) 
Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament in Greek, 
(Macmillan, 1881.) 

n. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 

Bacon, B. W. Introdtiction to the New Testament. (Macmillan, 
1900.) Inexpensive, but antiquated in part. 

* Jones, M. The New Testament in the Twentieth Century. 

(Macmillan, 19 14.) Popular and interesting. 
JULICHER, A. Introduction to the New Testament. (Putnam, 
1904.) 

183 



184 BOOKS FOR STUDY 

•Moftatt, James. Introduction to the Literature of the New 

Testament. (Scribner, 191 1.) The standard work. 
MoHR, J. C. B. Introduction to the New Testament. (Crown 

Theological Library, Williams & Norgate.) 
*Peake, a. S. Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 

(Scribner, 19 10.) Inexpensive handbook. 
Pfleiderer, O. Primitive Christianity. (Putnam, 1906-10.) 
SoDEN, H. VON. History of Early Christian Literature. (Putnam, 

1906.) 
Wrede, W. The Origin of the New Testament. (Harper, 1909.) 
Zahn, T. Introduction to the New Testament. (Scribner, 1909.) 

Traditional, but learned. 



m. COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPELS 

Allen, W. C. St. Matthew. (Scribner, 1908.) 

Bacon, B. W. Beginnings of the Gospel Story. (Yale Univer- 
sity, 1909.) 

Bruce, A. B., and Dods, M. Expositor's Greek Testament. (Dodd, 
1897.) 

Gould, E. P. St. Mark. (Scribner, 1896.) 

*McNeile, a. H. St. Matthew. (Macmillan, 1915.) Excep- 
tionally valuable. 

Menzies, a. The Earliest Gospel. (Macmillan, 1901.) 

Plummer, a. St. Matthew. (Scribner, 1909.) 

Plummer, a. St. Luke. (Scribner, 1909.) 

Swete, H. B. St. Mark. (Macmillan, 1902.) 

Westcott, B. F. St. John. (Murray, 1908.) 



IV. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 

BuRKiTT, F. C. The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus. 
(Houghton, Mifflin, 19 10.) Inexpensive; best simple intro- 
duction. 

*BuRKiTT, F. C. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. 
(Scribner, 1907.) 



BOOKS FOR STUDY 185 

Burton, E. D. Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic 

Problem. (University of Chicago Press, 1904.) 
Carpenter, J. E. The First Three Gospels, (Unitarian S. S. 

Society, 1910.) 
Castor, G. D. Matthew's Sayings of Jesus. (University of 

Chicago Press, 1918.) 
Harnack, a. Luke the Physician. (Putnam, 1907.) 
Harnack, a. The Sayings of Jesus. (Putnam, 1908.) 
Harnack, A. The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels. 

(Putnam, 19 11.) 
Hawkins, J. C. Horce Synopticce. (Frowde, 1909.) 
Manson, W. The First Three Gospels. (Clark, 19 14.) 
•Oxford, Members op the University of. Studies in the 
Synoptic Problem. (Oxford, 19 11.) This and the two 
books following are up to date, but technical. 
•Patton, C. S. Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. (Macmillan, 

1915.) See note above. 
•Sanday, W. Studies in the Synoptic Problem. (Clarendon 

Press, 191 1.) See note above. 
Stanton, V. H. The Gospels as Historical Documents. (Cam- 
bridge, 1909.) 

V. THE FOURTH GOSPEL 

ASKWITH, E. H. The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel. 
(Hodder, 1910.) 

Bacon, B. W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate. (Mof- 
fat, 19 10.) Erudite. 

Drummond, James. The Character and Authorship of the Fourth 
Gospd. (Scribner, 1904.) In favor of traditional author- 
ship, though by a Unitarian. 

♦Gardner, P. The Ephesian Gospel. (Putnam, 19 15.) Best 
popular treatment. 

Johnston, J. S. The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel. (Gorham, 
1909.) 

Lewis, F. G. The Irenceus Testimony as to the Fourth Gospd. 
(University of Chicago, 19 10.) 



l86 BOOKS POE STUDY 

♦Sanday, W. Th$ Criiicism of tht Feurth Gospel. (Scribner, 

1905.) 

ScHMiEDEL, P. W. The Johannine Writings. (Macmillan, 1908.) 

♦Scott, E. F. The Fourth Gospel. (Houghton, 1909.) In 
keeping with the liberal school. 

Weaeing, Thomas. The World View of the Fourth Gospel. (Uni- 
versity of Chicago Press, 19 18.) 

Wendt, H. H. The Gospel according to St. John. (Scribner, 
1902.) 



VI. HARMONIES OF THE GOSPELS 

* Burton, E. D., and Goodspeed, E. J. Earmmiy of the Synoptic 

Gospels. (Scribner, 19 17.) Inexpensive, and best for the 

average use. 
Sell, H. T. The Twentieth Century Story of Christ. (Revell, 

1918.) 
Sharman, H. B. Records of the Life of Jesus. (Doran, 1917.) 
Thompson, J. M. The Synoptic Gospels. (Oxford University, 

1910.) Best for Hterary analysis. 
Weight, A. A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek. (Macmillan, 

1903.) 



Vn. THE LIFE OF JESUS 

Note. — Of the innumerable Uves of Jesus only a few need 
be consulted. They all may be classified as "conservative," 
"liberal," or "eschatological," according as they represent the 
traditional orthodox point of view, embody the modernistic 
psychological treatment of the German school of the last century, 
or accept, wholly or in part, the revolutionary reinterpretation of 
Weiss and Schweitzer (see pp. 138 f.). All the presentations of 
each class follow the same general lines. The beginner is, there- 
fore, advised to read but one life of each school, and then analyze, 
compare, and interpret the synoptic gospels for himself upon the 
basis of a harmony, such as that of Burton and Goodspeed. 



BOOKS FOR STUDY 187 

Anderson, F. L. The Man of Nazareth. (Macmillan, 1914.) 

Belongs to liberal school. 
BoussET, W. Jesus. (Putnam, 1906.) Liberal or psychological 

school. 
Briggs, C. a. New Light on the Life of Jesus. (Scribner, 1904.) 

Conservative. 
Bruce, A. B. With Open Face. (Scribner, 1896.) Liberal. 
Case, S. J. The Historicity of Jesus. (University of Chicago 

Press, 19 1 2.) 
Gilbert, G. H. Jesus. (Macmillan, 191 2.) Brief and liberal. 
Glover, T. R. The Jesus of History. (Doran, 1917.) Brief 

and recent; conservative. 

* HoLTZMANN, O. Life of Jesus. (Macmillan, 1904.) Standard 

work of the liberal school. 
Knowling, R. J. The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ. (Scrib- 
ner, 1905.) 
♦Mackintosh, Article on Jesus Christ in Encyclopedia of 

Religion and Ethics. (Clark, 1914.) Admirably done. 
Neuman, a. Jesus. (Macmillan, 1906). Brilliant little sketch 

by a liberal. 
Rhees, R. The Life of Jesus of Nazareth. (Scribner, 1900.) 

Brief and conservative. 
Sanday, W. Article on Jesus Christ in Hastings^ Dictionary of 

the Bible. (Scribner, 1902). Reprinted as book (Scribner, 

1905.) Inexpensive and brief; conservative. 

* Sanday, W. The Life of Christ in Recent Research. (Oxford 

University, 1907.) Well balanced, but not up to date. 

* Schweitzer, A. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. (Macmillan, 

1910.) Readable survey of two centuries of German scholar- 
ship, and brilliantly translated by Montgomery; eschato- 
logical. Smnmary in last chapter. 
♦Scott, E. F. The Kingdom and the Messiah. (Clark, 1911.) 

Eschatological. 
Smith, D. The Days of His Flesh. (Doran, 19 10.) 
Strauss, D. F. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. (Mac- 
millan, 1908.) New edition of a classical book, but now 
antiquated. 



l88 BOOKS FOR STUDY 

Streeter, B. M. The Historic Christ: Part m of Foundations 
in A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought 
by Seven Oxford Men. (Macmillan, 191 2.) Eschatological. 

Weiss, B. The Life of Christ. (Scribner, 1909.) Conservative. 

Vm. THE TEACHING OF JESUS 

Abbott, L. The Ethical Teachings of Jesus. (University of 

Pennsylvania, 19 10.) 
BoswoRTH, E. I. Studies in the Teaching of Jesus. (Association 

Press, 1905.) 
Briggs, C. a. The Ethical Teaching of Jesus. (Scribner, 1904.) 
Bruce, A. B. The Parabolic Teaching of Jesus. (Doran, 1892.) 
Bruce, A. B. The Training of the Twelve. (Doran, 1902.) 
Burton, E. D., Smith, J. M. P., and Smith, G. B. Biblical Ideas 

of Atonement. (University of Chicago, 1909.) 
Cone, 0. Rich and Poor in the New Testament. (Macmillan, 

1902.) 
* Cross, G. What is Christianity? (University of Chicago Press, 

1918.) 
DoDS, M. The Parables of Our Lord. (Whittaker, 1895.) 
Hall, T. C. The History of Ethics within Organized Christianity. 

(Scribner, 19 10.) 
Harnack, a. What is Christianity? (Putnam, 19 10.) Liberal 

position. 
•Hinsdale, B. A. Jesus as a Teacher. (Christian Publishing 
Co., 1895.) Probably the best work on the method of Jesus. 
Hughes, H. M. The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, 

(Cully, 1909.) 
Jenks, J. W. Social Significance of the Teachings of Jesus. (As- 
sociation Press, 1907.) 
Kent, C. F. Social Teachings of the Prophets and Jesus. (Scrib- 
ner, 1917.) 
King, H. C. The Ethics of Jesus. (Macmillan, 19 10.) 
Knox, G. W. The Gospel of Jesus. (Houghton, 1909.) 
Lyttleton, E. H. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. (Long- 
mans, 1905.) 



BOOKS FOR STUDY 189 

* Mathews, Shailer. The Message of Jesus to Our Modern Life, 

(University of Chicago, 1915.) 
Mathews, Shailer. The Social Teaching of Jesus. (Macmillan, 

1905.) 

* MoFFATT, James. The Theology of the Gospels. (Duckworth, 

London, 19 12.) 
Murray, G. Jesus and His Parables. (Clark, 19 14.) 
*Peabody, F. G. Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, 

(Macmillan, 1904.) 

* Peabody, F. G. Jesus Christ and the Social Question. (Mac- 

millan, 191 2.) 
Pell, E. L. What Did Jesus Really Teach about War? (Revell, 

1918.) 
Pfleiderer, O. Primitive Christianity. (Putnam, 1906-10.) 
Rauschenbusch, W. The Social Principles of Jesus. (West- 
minster Press, Philadelphia, 19 18.) 
Ross, D. M. The Teaching of Jesus. (Clark, 1904.) 
*Selwyn, E. S. The Teaching of Christ, (Longmans, 1915.) 

Eschatological. 
Smith, F. W. Jesus —- Teacher, (Sturgis-Walton, 19 16.) 

* Stalker, James. The Ethic of Jesus. (Doran, 1909.) 

* Stevens, G. B. The Teaching of Jesus. (Macmillan, 1911.) 

Liberal, clear, and interesting. 
Stokes, A. P. What Jesus Christ Thought of Himself (Mac- 
millan, 19 16.) 
TiPSWORD, H. M. The Pedagogics of Jesus. (Badger, Boston, 

1916.) 
Toy, C. H. Judaism and Christianity. (Little, 1892.) 
Wayland, J. W. Christ as a Teacher. (Stratford Co., 1919.) 
Wernle, p. The Beginnings of Christianity. (Putnam, 1903-4.) 
Extreme example of the psychological; popular, facile, and 
interesting. 
Wilson, F. E. Contrasts in the Character of Christ. (Revell, 
1916.) 



IQO BOOKS FOR STUDY 

IX. GENERAL SUBJECTS 

* BuRKiTT, F. C. Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, (London, 

1913.) Eschatological. 
Carpenter, J. E. The Bible in the Nineteenth Century. (Long- 
mans, 1903.) 

* Charles, R. H. Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 

(London, 19 13.) 

* Charles, R. H. Religious Development between the New and 

Old Testaments. (Holt, 19 14.) 

*CoBERN, C. W. The New Archeological Discoveries and their 
Bearing upon the New Testament. (Funk & Wagnalls, 19 17.) 

Falconer, R. A. The Truth of the Apostolic Gospel. (Associa- 
tion Press, 1904.) 

* Goodspeed, E. J. The Story of the New Testament. (Univer- 

sity of Chicago Press, 19 16.) 
Gordon, G. A. Religion and Miracle. (Houghton, Mifflin, 1909.) 
Gould, E. P. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament. (Mac- 

millan, 1900.) 
Hall, G. Stanley. Jesus the Christ in the Light of Psychology, 

(Doubleday, Page, 19 18.) 
HiLLis, N. D. The Influence of Christ in Modern Life. (Mac- 

millan, 1900.) 
Hunting, H. B. The Story of Our Bible. (Scribner, 1915.) 

* Mathews, Shailer. History of New Testament Times in 

Palestine. (Macmillan, 1908.) 
Moulton, R. G. The Literary Study of the Bible. (Heath, 1899.) 
MouLTON, R. G. The Bible at a Single View. (Macmillan, 1918.) 
Nash, H. S. History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament. 

(Macmillan, 1900.) 

* Penniman, Josiah H. A Book about the English Bible. (Mac- 

millan, 1919.) Interesting literary discussion; up to date, 

but moderate in tone. 
Rall, H. F. New Testament History. (Abingdon Press, New 

York, 1 9 14.) 
Scott, E. F, The Beginnings of the Church, (Scribner, 19 14.) 

Eschatological. 



BOOKS FOR STUDY 19I 

Selleck, W. C. The New Appreciation of the Bible, (University 

of Chicago Press, 1907.) 
Sheldon, F. M. The Bible in our Modern World. (Pilgrim Press, 

Boston, 1918.) 
Smyth, J. Paterson. How We Got Our Bible. (James Pott, 

New York, 1899.) 
* Smyth, J. Paterson. The Bible in the Making. Qames Pott, 

New York, 1914.) Popular and clear. 
TiPLADY, T. The Cross at the J^ront. (Revell, 19 18.) 
Vincent, M. R. The History of the Textual Criticism of the New 

Testament. (Macmillan, 1899.) 
VoTAW, C. W. The Sermon on the Mount in Hastings' Dictionary 

of the Bible. (Scribner, 1904.) 
Wilson, P. W. The Christ We Forget. (ReveU, 1918.) 



INDEX 



Allegory, Jesus' use of, 44, 69 f . 
Almsgiving, 171 ff. 
Aphorisms, Jesus' use of, 65 ff. 
Apocalyptic writings, 137 f., 

142 ff. 
"Apperception," 59 f. 
Aristotle, 112. 
Authorized Version f 28. 

Banquets, 165 f. 
Baptism, 147. 
Barnabas, 13. 
Baruch, 87, 143. 
Beatitudes, i8. 
Beza, 27. 

Brotherhood of man, 95 f . 
Burkitt, 138. 

By-products, Jesus' teachings 
as, 156. 

Capernaum, 13, 23, 44. 

Children, 163 f. 

Christian virtues, iiiff.; and 

practice, 117 f. 
Christocentric, 22. 
Church, 14s f., 150. 
Clement, 7. 
Complutensiany 26. 
"Congregation," 146. 
Conversion, 118 ff. 



Daniel, 86. 
David, 143. 
Demas, 17. 
Divorce, 157 £f. 
Docetists, 25. 

Elzevir, 27. 

Enoch, 87, 129, 143. 

Epaphras, 17. 

Epigrams, Jesus' use of, 65 ff. 

Epistles of Paul, 11. 

Erasmus, 26, 88. 

EsdraSy 143. 

Ethical theories, 106. 

Family, 161. 

Father, God as, 74 ff. 

Fatherhood, attributes of, 76 ff. 

Fiery furnace, 132 f. 

Fourth Gospel, see Gospel of 

John. 
"Fulfilhnent,"63f., 92f. 
Future coming of Jesus, 134 ff. 

Gehenna, 132. 

God, Jesus' idea of, 73 ff. 

Gospel, 12; of Mark, 12, 13, 14, 
IS, 32f.; of Matthew, 14, 15, 
16 f.; of Luke, 14, 15, 17 ff.; 
of John, 20 ff.; according to 



193 



194 



INDEX 



Hebrews, 34, ixo; of Peter, 
24. 
Government, Jesus' attitude to- 
ward, 174 ff. 

HiUel, 47. 

Historical approach, i f. 
Human nature, Jesus' knowl- 
edge of, 55 ff. 

Ideals, Jesus', 106 ff. 
Ignatius, 7. 

Industrial conditions, 173 f. 
Informality of Jesus* teaching, 
50 f. 



Literal interpretation, 3 ff. 
Levi, see Matthew, 16. 
Logos doctrine, 21, 22. 
Luke, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15. 

Manuscripts of New Testament^ 

26 ff. 
Mark, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 

IS, 32. 
Marriage, 157 ff. 
Mary, mother of Mark, 13. 
Matthew, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15. 
Moffatt, 29, 139. 



New Testament, in Modern 
Speech, 28; Twentieth Cen- 
tury; New Translation, 29. 

Noah, 143. 



Jerome, 24. 

Jerusalem, 23. 

Jesus, as supernatural, in Mark, 

32; as teacher and law-giver, Optimism of Jesus, 102 ff. 

in Matthew, ZZ, 34 ff-; as Qrigen, 24. 

humanitarian, in Luke, 33; Outward action, Jesus' use of, 

as "word" in John, ^Z) as ^^^ 

Messiah, 32 f., 33, 34, 82, 

87, 89, 134 ff., 142 ff.; as Papias, Bishop, 7, lo, 12, 16. 

Teacher, 34 ff. ; his character, Parables, 44, 67 ff. 



2)^ f . ; his intuition, 56 f . 
John, 8, 9, 21 ff., 126, 129. 
John, see Mark, 13. 
John the Baptist, 22, 44, 47. 
Josephus, 25. 
Judgment, the, 128 ff. 
Justin Martyr, 7, 12. 

Kingdom of God, 32, 33, 34, 45, 
845., 96 f., loi, 109, no, 
117, 13s, 137 ff-, 142 ff., 181. 



"Passive" virtues, 112 ff. 

Paul, II, 13, 17, 150. 

Peter, 7, 12, 13, 16. 

Petrine theory, 148 ff., 150. 

Philo Judaeus, 21, 22, 25. 

Plato, 112. 

Pliny the Yoimger, 25. 

Plutarch, 25. 

Politics, 174 f. 

Polycarp, 7. 

Principles, rather than pm- 



I 



INDEX 



195 



cepts, 154 f-> 160, 163, 164 f., 
173, 174, 177- 
"Problem," use of in teaching, 

51 ff. 
Psychological interpretations, 

137 f. 
Punishment, 131 fif. 

Q {Quelle), 10. 

Reconstruction of life, 120 ff. 
Rejection of historicity, 2 f. 
Resurrection, i24ff. 
Revised Version, 28. 
Reward, 131 ff. 



Salvation, 118. 

Sanday, 138. 

Sayings of Jesus, 9, 12, 13, 15, 

16, 18, 32. 
Schweitzer, 138. 
Scott, 139. 
Seneca, 25. 
Sm, 99 ff. 
Social life, 165 ff. 
Solomon, 143. 
Sonship, 79 ff., 95 ff.; of Jesus, 

82 f. 
Soul, worth of, 97 f. 
Sources, 8 ff., 97 f. 
Stephanus, 27. 
Suetonius, 25. 
Siunmary of Jesus* teachings, 

29 f., 48 f., 71, 93, 104 f., 

123, 140, 152 f., 177 f., 180 ff. 
Summum bonum, 107; of Jesus, 

107 ff. 

Printed in the United States of America 



Synoptic gospels, 9, 19 f. 
Synoptic problem, solutions of, 
20. 

Tacitus, 25. 

Teaching, Jesus* fitness for, 

35 ff- 
Teaching of Jesus, 39 f.; aim, 
40 ff . ; content, 42 f . ; methods, 

43 f., 50 ff.; organization, 

44 f . ; results, 46 ff. 
Texts of New Testament, 26 f. 
Theocentric, 22. 

Tolstoy, 115. 

Translations, see Versions, 
Tyndale, 28. 
TyreU, 138. 



Verbal inspiration, 3 ff. 

Version, Authorized, 2S; Revised, 
28; King James, 28; Wey- 
mouth, 28; Twentieth Century, 
29; Moffatt, 29. 

Vulgate, 28. 

War, Jesus' view of, 116 f., 
156 f. 

Wealth, 167 ff. 
We3Tnouth, 28. 
Woman, 161 ff. 
WycUf, 28. 

Xenophanes, 73. 
Ximenes, Cardinal, 26. 

Zechariah, 143. 



I 

I 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologie> 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOr 

1 1 1 TTiomson Parts Dnve 
Cranberrv- Tovinshio PA 16066 



